What do you think?
Rate this book
Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics
Stefan Molyneux, MA, is the host of Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web.
Freedomain Radio was a Top 10 finalist in the 'Education' category in the 2007-2010 Podcast Awards, and has been named one of the 'Top 100 Most Inspiring and Innovative Blogs for Educators.'
In many fairy tales, there lives a terrible beast of stupendous power, a dragon or a basilisk, which tyrannizes the surrounding lands. The local villagers tremble before this monster; they sacrifice their animals, pay money and blood in the hopes of appeasing its murderous impulses. Year after year, decade after decade, wave after wave of hopeful champions try to match their strength, virtue and cunning against this terrible tyrant. Try – and fail. Inevitably, a man steps forward who strikes everyone as utterly incongruous. He is a stable boy, a shoemaker’s son, a baker’s apprentice – or sometimes, just a vagabond. This book is the story of my personal assault on just such a beast. This “beast” is the belief that it is impossible to define an objective, rational, secular and scientific ethical system. This “beast” is the illusion that morality must forever be lost in the irrational swamps of gods and governments, forever lacking logical justification and clear definition...
Freedomain Radio was a Top 10 finalist in the 'Education' category in the 2007-2010 Podcast Awards, and has been named one of the 'Top 100 Most Inspiring and Innovative Blogs for Educators.'
In many fairy tales, there lives a terrible beast of stupendous power, a dragon or a basilisk, which tyrannizes the surrounding lands. The local villagers tremble before this monster; they sacrifice their animals, pay money and blood in the hopes of appeasing its murderous impulses. Year after year, decade after decade, wave after wave of hopeful champions try to match their strength, virtue and cunning against this terrible tyrant. Try – and fail. Inevitably, a man steps forward who strikes everyone as utterly incongruous. He is a stable boy, a shoemaker’s son, a baker’s apprentice – or sometimes, just a vagabond. This book is the story of my personal assault on just such a beast. This “beast” is the belief that it is impossible to define an objective, rational, secular and scientific ethical system. This “beast” is the illusion that morality must forever be lost in the irrational swamps of gods and governments, forever lacking logical justification and clear definition...
177 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2007
64 people are currently reading
361 people want to read
About the author
Stefan Molyneux
36 books529 followersStefan Molyneux is the founder and host of Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophical show in the world. With more than 2,600 podcasts, 10 books and 50 million downloads, Stefan has spread the cause of liberty and philosophy to listeners throughout the world.
As the host of Freedomain Radio, Stefan has interviewed experts Noam Chomsky, Dr. Nathaniel Branden, Dr. Warren Farrell, Peter Schiff, Dr. Peter Boghossian, Dr. Mary J. Ruwart and many others.
Prior to launching Freedomain Radio, Stefan built a thriving career as a software entrepreneur and executive. In 2006, he left his work in the tech industry to devote his efforts to Freedomain Radio. Now a self-identified full-time parent and philosopher, Stefan speaks regularly at liberty-themed events all over North and South America. His speeches cover subjects ranging from politics, philosophy, science, atheism and economics to relationships, parenting and how to achieve real freedom in your life.
Stefan is the author of two novels, "Revolutions" and "The God of Atheists," as well as eight non-fiction books on relationships, government and religion.
Past live appearances include presentations at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, the Porcupine Freedom Festival, Libertopia, Students For Liberty, FreedomFest, LibertyNow, Capitalism and Morality, LibertyFest West, the Brazilian Mises Institute's Idieas em Movimento, Freedom Summit, and the Global Escape Hatch.
Stefan has participated in a number of live debates, among them: "Bitcoin vs. Gold: The Future of Money" with Peter Schiff, "Zeitgeist Versus the Market" with Peter Joseph, "The Function of the State in Society" with Professor Vladimir Safatle and "How Much Government is Necessary?" with Michael Badnarik.
In addition to hosting his own regular show, Stefan has been a guest on audio and television programs such as RT America's "Breaking the Set" with Abby Martin, "Adam vs. The Man" with Adam Kokesh, "The Keiser Report" with Max Keiser and "The Joe Rogan Experience" with Joe Rogan.
As the host of Freedomain Radio, Stefan has interviewed experts Noam Chomsky, Dr. Nathaniel Branden, Dr. Warren Farrell, Peter Schiff, Dr. Peter Boghossian, Dr. Mary J. Ruwart and many others.
Prior to launching Freedomain Radio, Stefan built a thriving career as a software entrepreneur and executive. In 2006, he left his work in the tech industry to devote his efforts to Freedomain Radio. Now a self-identified full-time parent and philosopher, Stefan speaks regularly at liberty-themed events all over North and South America. His speeches cover subjects ranging from politics, philosophy, science, atheism and economics to relationships, parenting and how to achieve real freedom in your life.
Stefan is the author of two novels, "Revolutions" and "The God of Atheists," as well as eight non-fiction books on relationships, government and religion.
Past live appearances include presentations at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, the Porcupine Freedom Festival, Libertopia, Students For Liberty, FreedomFest, LibertyNow, Capitalism and Morality, LibertyFest West, the Brazilian Mises Institute's Idieas em Movimento, Freedom Summit, and the Global Escape Hatch.
Stefan has participated in a number of live debates, among them: "Bitcoin vs. Gold: The Future of Money" with Peter Schiff, "Zeitgeist Versus the Market" with Peter Joseph, "The Function of the State in Society" with Professor Vladimir Safatle and "How Much Government is Necessary?" with Michael Badnarik.
In addition to hosting his own regular show, Stefan has been a guest on audio and television programs such as RT America's "Breaking the Set" with Abby Martin, "Adam vs. The Man" with Adam Kokesh, "The Keiser Report" with Max Keiser and "The Joe Rogan Experience" with Joe Rogan.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
May 28, 2014
Not since Ayn Rand has a "philosopher" argued for moral realism in such a repugnant and ridiculous manner. Molyneux has one up on Rand because he understands basic epistemology much better than she does, but his work is filled with rhetorical tricks that are easily revealed to anybody with a basic knowledge of philosophy before they begin.
Like Sam Harris, Molyneux is most effective when he is making arguments for moral realism, but then he dishonestly tries to portray the very concept of moral realism as if it is synonymous with his theory rather than a necessary condition to accept his theory. I agree with his deontological approach, such as when he says a starving man who steals an apple does what we all might do but that still doesn't make it right. But then he rejects the entire factor of autonomy and says that only an "incompetent" person would be in such a situation in the first place.
Like Sam Harris, Molyneux is most effective when he is making arguments for moral realism, but then he dishonestly tries to portray the very concept of moral realism as if it is synonymous with his theory rather than a necessary condition to accept his theory. I agree with his deontological approach, such as when he says a starving man who steals an apple does what we all might do but that still doesn't make it right. But then he rejects the entire factor of autonomy and says that only an "incompetent" person would be in such a situation in the first place.
April 3, 2014
With arguments that have more holes than a fishing net and logical fallacies around every corner, this book is enough to make real philosophers cry from either grief or laughter, so if you're in the mood for a good cry I recommend it highly.
May 16, 2016
I'm not even sure what to write, frankly. I get a creepy feeling every time I read something this guy has written or listen to anything he has to say. Everything is a trap intended to "teach" you how to think, feel, react and behave. Someday we'll read about the people he lead to slaughter. Run away screaming from this book.
August 3, 2020
In terms of writing, Stefan Molyneux's style is really obnoxious. It often comes across as grandiose. Molyneux ends so many passages with a little standalone sentence that's supposed to be witty and insightful, but it's nearly always groanworthy. He also uses punctuation seemingly at random, giving it more of an amateurish look. This look comes back often when you see the structure of this book, as it too almost seems random at times. One minute Molyneux will be talking about applying "universal preferable behavior" to murder or rape, and then he'll randomly cap things off with an ex nihilo, cheap, fleeting discussion about animal ethics that will leave you bewildered.
In terms of writing philosophy, Molyneux is a mess. He'll often make up his own distinctions and terms (e.g., "little truths," "null zone," "aesthetically negative," etc.), which serve to inflate his ego and bog you down in attempting to untangle his point. Beyond that, he also seems to struggle with already established distinctions. For example, he acts as if an act being good means that it is obligatory, but that is not at all obvious (e.g., giving a lot of my paycheck to charity may be good, but it is not obviously morally obligatory), and pointing out that distinction would undercut some of his half-baked thought experiments. Additionally, Molyneux can sometimes struggle to keep his point simple or clear. The passages in which he applies "universally preferable behavior" to murder seem especially shoddy. A good example of Molyneux's bizarre philosophical writing are his attempts at making his premises and conclusions more bare, such as the following argument that he explicitly gives us:
1. For a scientific theory to be valid, it must be supported by empirical observation.
2. If the concept of “universally preferable behaviour” is valid, then mankind should believe in universally preferable behaviour.
3. All men believe in universally preferable behaviour.
4. 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.
I don't know if the above argument is even valid, much less sound. It looks like it affirms the consequent at some step (premise 2 and 3), but it's worded so awkwardly that I don't care to find out.
For the actual philosophy, Molyneux does no better. His starting point is empiricist and naturalist, and Molyneux doesn't do much in defending these views other than copying and pasting some Reddit posts about how religions are fairytales. However, there are rationalist and non-naturalists who are not theists, and a lot of them have given more compelling cases for moral realism than Molyneux and they would have some questions for his epistemology. On the point of epistemology, Molyneux seemingly attempts to base the laws of logic on what we have observed (he argues along the lines that since we haven't seen contradictory things occur, we therefore know the law of noncontradiction is true), but this sort of justification for the laws of logic cannot account for the necessity or certainty of these principles.
Lastly, the definition of "universally preferable behavior" seems to amount to how most people would behave or what objectively allows one to achieve certain goals. But none of this establishes realism or fends off subjectivism. It seems like a subjectivist could perfectly accept Molyneux's metaethics, as he does not establish that one is wrong with respect to having different goals than the majority (or what if the majority had radically different goals than we do now?). He can point to the arguably self-defeating nature of permitting murder all he wants, but this gives us no empirical justification (Molyneux is obsessed with establishing morality through "the scientific method") for why we ought not murder. In other words, there's no empirical or scientific fact that demonstrates that it is morally wrong to have or act on inconsistent beliefs.
In terms of writing philosophy, Molyneux is a mess. He'll often make up his own distinctions and terms (e.g., "little truths," "null zone," "aesthetically negative," etc.), which serve to inflate his ego and bog you down in attempting to untangle his point. Beyond that, he also seems to struggle with already established distinctions. For example, he acts as if an act being good means that it is obligatory, but that is not at all obvious (e.g., giving a lot of my paycheck to charity may be good, but it is not obviously morally obligatory), and pointing out that distinction would undercut some of his half-baked thought experiments. Additionally, Molyneux can sometimes struggle to keep his point simple or clear. The passages in which he applies "universally preferable behavior" to murder seem especially shoddy. A good example of Molyneux's bizarre philosophical writing are his attempts at making his premises and conclusions more bare, such as the following argument that he explicitly gives us:
1. For a scientific theory to be valid, it must be supported by empirical observation.
2. If the concept of “universally preferable behaviour” is valid, then mankind should believe in universally preferable behaviour.
3. All men believe in universally preferable behaviour.
4. 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.
I don't know if the above argument is even valid, much less sound. It looks like it affirms the consequent at some step (premise 2 and 3), but it's worded so awkwardly that I don't care to find out.
For the actual philosophy, Molyneux does no better. His starting point is empiricist and naturalist, and Molyneux doesn't do much in defending these views other than copying and pasting some Reddit posts about how religions are fairytales. However, there are rationalist and non-naturalists who are not theists, and a lot of them have given more compelling cases for moral realism than Molyneux and they would have some questions for his epistemology. On the point of epistemology, Molyneux seemingly attempts to base the laws of logic on what we have observed (he argues along the lines that since we haven't seen contradictory things occur, we therefore know the law of noncontradiction is true), but this sort of justification for the laws of logic cannot account for the necessity or certainty of these principles.
Lastly, the definition of "universally preferable behavior" seems to amount to how most people would behave or what objectively allows one to achieve certain goals. But none of this establishes realism or fends off subjectivism. It seems like a subjectivist could perfectly accept Molyneux's metaethics, as he does not establish that one is wrong with respect to having different goals than the majority (or what if the majority had radically different goals than we do now?). He can point to the arguably self-defeating nature of permitting murder all he wants, but this gives us no empirical justification (Molyneux is obsessed with establishing morality through "the scientific method") for why we ought not murder. In other words, there's no empirical or scientific fact that demonstrates that it is morally wrong to have or act on inconsistent beliefs.
April 24, 2020
In this book, Molyneux makes the shocking discovery that morals are universal.
On one page, he condemns the idea that "killing fish is evil" by using sharks as proof that sometimes, killing fish is unavoidable. On the next page, man-eating sharks are amoral actors who do not disprove the idea that killing people is evil.
On one page, he condemns the idea that "killing fish is evil" by using sharks as proof that sometimes, killing fish is unavoidable. On the next page, man-eating sharks are amoral actors who do not disprove the idea that killing people is evil.
July 8, 2018
Molyneux presents in this book his secular theory of ethics, for what we should and should not do. In his own way of writing, that I’m not too fond of(the paragraphs!!), he manages to put forth the theory in a systematic manner. As most systematic theories, they are pretty boring to read with the occasional good and important parts. I felt that some parts of the argument were a bit muddled, and the same kind of ambiguity in the argument made the read somewhat harder to follow. Part 1 did, however, do a decent job of presenting the theory.
An example from the chapter on murder in part 2. The claim is that murder is not universally preferable because for it to be, two persons must be able to murder each other. I see some soundness in it(based on the first part), but there is also the problem that universally preferable behavior is not something that we do all the time at the same time(yes, we avoid murder if we do not do it, but it is not behavior - it is the lack of the behavior, and UPB is mostly about not doing bad things than doing good things). So if murder was good, and one did it, it does not make the other's loss of the ability to murder necessarily make murder bad. Just like a natural death makes the dead man unable to act in respect of others property - because he is unable to do the respecting(for that, he needs to be alive). This is why part 2 seems to consist only of UPB’s in negative - the lack of bad behavior, that is Universally Avoidable Behavior - a more fitting name for the theory? It seems at least more of a “Don’t do unto others...” than a “Do unto others...” kind of theory. For oneself, it seems to embrace “Be truthful” rather than “Avoid being deceitful”, but "Be truthful" is not a very clear thing.
Still, there is an argument in there that seem correct in the whole, but all this negating approach makes it frustrating to read and sometimes to follow. Just like an endless string of double negatives, one gets too dizzy to care. Some of it just feels like an unnecessary complication, even though I’m in agreement. Because of that, I don’t think the theory, sadly, is going to have a wide impact. It seems more of a complex framework of ranking behavior on a scale rather than a more clear theory of good action. It could have done with better writing, but this was enough to appreciate the value of the theory and get a glimpse into the processes that guide the mind of the author.
An example from the chapter on murder in part 2. The claim is that murder is not universally preferable because for it to be, two persons must be able to murder each other. I see some soundness in it(based on the first part), but there is also the problem that universally preferable behavior is not something that we do all the time at the same time(yes, we avoid murder if we do not do it, but it is not behavior - it is the lack of the behavior, and UPB is mostly about not doing bad things than doing good things). So if murder was good, and one did it, it does not make the other's loss of the ability to murder necessarily make murder bad. Just like a natural death makes the dead man unable to act in respect of others property - because he is unable to do the respecting(for that, he needs to be alive). This is why part 2 seems to consist only of UPB’s in negative - the lack of bad behavior, that is Universally Avoidable Behavior - a more fitting name for the theory? It seems at least more of a “Don’t do unto others...” than a “Do unto others...” kind of theory. For oneself, it seems to embrace “Be truthful” rather than “Avoid being deceitful”, but "Be truthful" is not a very clear thing.
Still, there is an argument in there that seem correct in the whole, but all this negating approach makes it frustrating to read and sometimes to follow. Just like an endless string of double negatives, one gets too dizzy to care. Some of it just feels like an unnecessary complication, even though I’m in agreement. Because of that, I don’t think the theory, sadly, is going to have a wide impact. It seems more of a complex framework of ranking behavior on a scale rather than a more clear theory of good action. It could have done with better writing, but this was enough to appreciate the value of the theory and get a glimpse into the processes that guide the mind of the author.
April 8, 2020
Amateurish, emotionally driven & self-contradictory.
March 2, 2023
Universally Preferable Bollocks.
It's all word games. A proof is casually pushed down into a definition or premise, then the next 20 pages is tedious circular reasoning and analogy after analogy, flogging a horse that was never alive in the first place. The coma test for example. Or "you follow UPB to keep yourself alive therefor you can't argue against UPB!". Nobody with a brain is convinced by shenanigans like this.
The rape section is hilariously bad. Two people can't rape each other at the same time therefor rape can't be a moral standard. Ok but two people can't give each other charity at the same time either (one gift is bigger or they cancel out). So UPB puts rape in the same category as charity? Woops. Even Ayn Rand wouldn't go that far.
The author seems to notice his mistake and a small paragraph clarifies that actually rape is evil because it violates the NAP. But if we've got the NAP what do we need UPB for? And if you don't accept the NAP then UPB has nothing else to offer.
There's other fun stuff like the author cannot think of a way two people could kill each other at the same time therefor murder is immoral. And did you know that when you get surgery that means a tumor has initiated force against you and the surgeon who cuts you open is a surrogate acting in your self defense? I swear he deserves a slap from zombie Rothbard for that paragraph alone.
If I didn't know any better I would think the author was controlled opposition, deliberately trying to make the lib-right look as ridiculous as possible. But I do know better and the truth is sadder than that.
This is a vanity project.
Molyneux doesn't want to be the 200th person to write an introductory book to the NAP or homesteading or something. He wants to be _the_ guy who made a massive and unique breakthrough. If you listen to his radio show he freely admits his fantasy is that in 300 years people will look back and say "wow, that Molyneux is such a great philosopher for discovering UPB what a genius! Who is your favorite philosopher, Aristotle or Molyneux?".
And I think that explains why the book is the way it is. Zero citations. Zero mention of any other thinkers or writers. Zero acknowledgment that anything ever existed before. Everything is just pulled out of thin air along with goofy new names and acronyms. It's all so he can pretend to have discovered something new and take credit for it. And the fact that UPB is not the breakthrough he wants it to be is not going to stop him taking that credit.
Just to be clear I don't have anything against the author, I don't even think he's wrong about most things. I genuinely think this is a terrible book written for terrible reasons.
It's all word games. A proof is casually pushed down into a definition or premise, then the next 20 pages is tedious circular reasoning and analogy after analogy, flogging a horse that was never alive in the first place. The coma test for example. Or "you follow UPB to keep yourself alive therefor you can't argue against UPB!". Nobody with a brain is convinced by shenanigans like this.
The rape section is hilariously bad. Two people can't rape each other at the same time therefor rape can't be a moral standard. Ok but two people can't give each other charity at the same time either (one gift is bigger or they cancel out). So UPB puts rape in the same category as charity? Woops. Even Ayn Rand wouldn't go that far.
The author seems to notice his mistake and a small paragraph clarifies that actually rape is evil because it violates the NAP. But if we've got the NAP what do we need UPB for? And if you don't accept the NAP then UPB has nothing else to offer.
There's other fun stuff like the author cannot think of a way two people could kill each other at the same time therefor murder is immoral. And did you know that when you get surgery that means a tumor has initiated force against you and the surgeon who cuts you open is a surrogate acting in your self defense? I swear he deserves a slap from zombie Rothbard for that paragraph alone.
If I didn't know any better I would think the author was controlled opposition, deliberately trying to make the lib-right look as ridiculous as possible. But I do know better and the truth is sadder than that.
This is a vanity project.
Molyneux doesn't want to be the 200th person to write an introductory book to the NAP or homesteading or something. He wants to be _the_ guy who made a massive and unique breakthrough. If you listen to his radio show he freely admits his fantasy is that in 300 years people will look back and say "wow, that Molyneux is such a great philosopher for discovering UPB what a genius! Who is your favorite philosopher, Aristotle or Molyneux?".
And I think that explains why the book is the way it is. Zero citations. Zero mention of any other thinkers or writers. Zero acknowledgment that anything ever existed before. Everything is just pulled out of thin air along with goofy new names and acronyms. It's all so he can pretend to have discovered something new and take credit for it. And the fact that UPB is not the breakthrough he wants it to be is not going to stop him taking that credit.
Just to be clear I don't have anything against the author, I don't even think he's wrong about most things. I genuinely think this is a terrible book written for terrible reasons.
May 16, 2020
I heard that this book has very serious logical fallacies. I just checked it out to make sure that it is true, and yeah, it is true. Seventh premise of UPB is a logical fallacy:
Because I can debate someone and still do not believe that truth is universally preferable. Because of that, I haven't even finished the whole book. The author is boasting about this book, that this is some kind of Holy Grail of ethics. It is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGh0...
[...]
6. “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.
7. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
[...]
Because I can debate someone and still do not believe that truth is universally preferable. Because of that, I haven't even finished the whole book. The author is boasting about this book, that this is some kind of Holy Grail of ethics. It is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGh0...
April 6, 2014
The first part of the book was excellent, but when he started trying to find proof where it was either painfully obvious or not really provable, his good idea just withered away and died. It was a good theory to start, but his applications or proofs really made little sense, especially when he tried to generalize into his own personal politics and so forth.
I gave it three stars, however, because it began with such promise and really was a great half of a book! I would recommend it to readers of philosophy and ethics, but with the caveat that the author kind of loses his way halfway through the work.
I gave it three stars, however, because it began with such promise and really was a great half of a book! I would recommend it to readers of philosophy and ethics, but with the caveat that the author kind of loses his way halfway through the work.
July 26, 2013
A logical proof of objective morality. He uses a unique approach to prove that there are human acts that are objectivity(for all people at all times) wrong.
June 14, 2017
Recommended for anyone interested in philosophy, morality, ethics, reasoning, and logic.
June 1, 2010
"The gravest danger in making up incomprehensible "answers" to rational and essential questions is that it provides the illusion of an answer, which in general negates the pursuit of truth. Furthermore, a group inevitably coalesces to defend and profit from this irrational non-answer. ... If we allow the existence of a government – a minority of people who claim the right to initiate the use of force, a right which is specifically denied to everyone else – then any and all moral "rules" enforced by the government are purely subjective, since the government is by definition based on a violation of moral rules."
May 19, 2019
Mind blowing formulation of ethics without the need for a deity. Provides a logically bulletproof way of defining what is good and what is bad without any need to invoke the supernatural, yet is in almost perfect harmony with Christian ethics.
It is a simple concept on its face, and many confuse it with Kant's categorical imperative, but don't be fooled, UPB is far deeper than this. For a great primer, see this reasonably succinct video and decide for yourself whether it is worth reading. https://youtu.be/2tj8TnjAB-s
It is a simple concept on its face, and many confuse it with Kant's categorical imperative, but don't be fooled, UPB is far deeper than this. For a great primer, see this reasonably succinct video and decide for yourself whether it is worth reading. https://youtu.be/2tj8TnjAB-s
July 19, 2016
I found this very poorly written, with rushed (sometimes non-existent) explanations of assumptions. It's also chock-full of fallacies. Reading this is what got me out of FreedomainRadio - I was previously a huge fan.
to-assess
August 14, 2017Red flags: author has links to the Zeitgeist movement and Alex Jones. http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBo...
April 13, 2013
I've put some commentary on my blog at http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2012... . I can't follow his argument.
October 20, 2015
Excelente libro, claro en los conceptos.
April 6, 2018
This book is not Stefan Molyneux's finest hour. I have written a detailed critique of it, (which I would be happy to share privately - just message me and I'll send it to you), and it is riddled with fallacies and bizarre 'logical' manoeuvres. Having said that, having read Stefan's other books and listened to his videos on youtube, I do feel his heart is very much in the right place. Like his other works, it is eminently readable showcasing his characteristic wit and flair for metaphor, and even contains some valuable political points. Just don't expect it to add much to your foundational understanding of Ethics, or achieve what it sets out to do on the tin. It is, however, reassuring for us, who are otherwise a little intimidated by the scope of his knowledge and ready debating ability, to note that Stefan is nevertheless human after all!
April 7, 2023
So morality can be logical and scientific. Great! Sadly, most people rejecting religion and the state don’t find this very attractive, as it was never morality what they were searching for in the first place.
January 23, 2018
Meh....It was OK
February 10, 2018
Excellent book providing Universal Values that's not dogmatic or religious in nature.
January 29, 2019
I despised it because it reminded me too much of Ayn Rand
October 1, 2020
I like the concept of UPB. But reading it was boring and long. Should have gotten to the point quicker.
September 17, 2022
A bit tough to read at times, but an excellent book on secular ethics.
February 11, 2023
Nonsense. To claim that behavior can be universally preferable is the rhetoric is communism (or the Borg). You can’t get an ought from an is. There is no objective morality.
September 20, 2016
Pretty solid
This book covers a lot but I think it can be shorter and still be good. Great examples and pure logic.
This book covers a lot but I think it can be shorter and still be good. Great examples and pure logic.
December 19, 2018
This book makes the case that murdering, raping or stealing are immoral behaviors. This means that, excluding rare exceptions, all human beings universally prefer not to be murdered, raped or stolen from.
I didn't like the verbiage he chose to define a UPB (universally preferable behavior) - "It is good (universally preferable and enforceable through violence, such as “don’t murder”)" - I don't agree that it is moral to use "violence" to protect yourself from theft. I would be okay with it if he said it can morally be defended through the initiation of force. I don't think violence can be justified if someone walks up to my desk and steals my pen. Or my laptop. I can prevent or stop it from happening - even if that means physically stopping the person or forcibly removing the item from them, but I can't punch them in the face. Violence only seems justified when defending yourself from violence - not ANY violation of a UPB. I'd love to hear his response, though.
I'd like to participate in the author's call-in show. And have him on my live show via split screen. When I tried to look back through the material, it was a little hard to find the answers to the questions I had. I feel lucky to potentially have access to discussing it with him live!
Probably my favorite part of this book was when he pointed out that individual criminals are not the biggest threat to a free society - but rather than wrong moral values impressed upon individuals - and their children - through the initiation of force - is the single biggest threat to a free society. I highly recommend another of his books, The Art of the Argument: Western Civilization's Last Chance
He touched on the NAP - non-aggression principle - but I wasn't 100% clear on whether he thinks the initiation of force is immoral or not.
If you enjoy philosophy, logic & reason, check out all his free books at www.freedomainradio.com/free/
I didn't like the verbiage he chose to define a UPB (universally preferable behavior) - "It is good (universally preferable and enforceable through violence, such as “don’t murder”)" - I don't agree that it is moral to use "violence" to protect yourself from theft. I would be okay with it if he said it can morally be defended through the initiation of force. I don't think violence can be justified if someone walks up to my desk and steals my pen. Or my laptop. I can prevent or stop it from happening - even if that means physically stopping the person or forcibly removing the item from them, but I can't punch them in the face. Violence only seems justified when defending yourself from violence - not ANY violation of a UPB. I'd love to hear his response, though.
I'd like to participate in the author's call-in show. And have him on my live show via split screen. When I tried to look back through the material, it was a little hard to find the answers to the questions I had. I feel lucky to potentially have access to discussing it with him live!
Probably my favorite part of this book was when he pointed out that individual criminals are not the biggest threat to a free society - but rather than wrong moral values impressed upon individuals - and their children - through the initiation of force - is the single biggest threat to a free society. I highly recommend another of his books, The Art of the Argument: Western Civilization's Last Chance
He touched on the NAP - non-aggression principle - but I wasn't 100% clear on whether he thinks the initiation of force is immoral or not.
If you enjoy philosophy, logic & reason, check out all his free books at www.freedomainradio.com/free/
August 13, 2018
A solid logical proof for Ethics but it is clearly not a Secular proof. At no time does the book address the giant leap of faith that must be made to agree to the initial premise. It assumes a rational human being.
May 24, 2014
OK, I admit it. I couldn't finish it. Got about half way through. I guess philosophy literature just isn't for me.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews