Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics

by Stefan Molyneux

For thousands of years, humanity has attempted to enforce ethics through supernatural and secular punishments; this rabid aggression has been both necessary and ridiculous. It has been necessary because a rational proof of secular ethics has never been achieved; it has been ridiculous because it is impossible to imagine any scientific or mathematical argument being advanced in such a hysterical and violent manner. “Ethics” has been one of the great government programs of history; since kings and priests ruled mankind, only those philosophers who served their interests tended to get promoted to prominence, rather than imprisoned, poisoned or burned. Thus, over 2,500 years since its inception, the discipline of ethics remains largely subjectivist, relativist and cultural – and was not only unable to restrain, but may have played a part in promoting the horrors, wars and genocides of the 20th century, the bloodiest hundred years of history of our species. Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, has written "Universally Preferable A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics,” which presents radical and rational arguments for a nonreligious, non-statist, entirely secular set ethical standards which validate the nonaggression principle – thou shalt not initiate force against thy fellow human – and the fundamental logic for respecting property rights. Rigorous, analytical and challenging, “Universally Preferable Behavior” provides a solid foundation for secular ethics. This book solves the ancient philosopher Petrarch’s dichotomy, which is that it is better to will the good than know the truth. Armed with the arguments in “Universally Preferable Behavior,” you can both know the truth and will the good.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics

223 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Stefan 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.

Reviews

[Christopher · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[Thomas H · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[Carlton Houston · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[Shortsman · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[5 pound poi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Amateurish, emotionally driven & self-contradictory.

[Goodi · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[Grzegorz · Rating 1 out of 5]

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:

[...]
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...

[Mark Abrams · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[John Mladenik · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Tobias Heemskerk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Recommended for anyone interested in philosophy, morality, ethics, reasoning, and logic.

[David Robins · Rating 5 out of 5]

"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."

[Hamish · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

[Samuel · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[Pierre A Renaud]

Red flags: author has links to the Zeitgeist movement and Alex Jones. http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBo...

[Dave Burns · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've put some commentary on my blog at http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2012... . I can't follow his argument.

[Sol · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excelente libro, claro en los conceptos.

[Max Lewy · Rating 2 out of 5]

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!

[Sebi Mihalache · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh....It was OK

[Ivan Pretorius · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book providing Universal Values that's not dogmatic or religious in nature.

[Elliot Lake · Rating 2 out of 5]

I despised it because it reminded me too much of Ayn Rand

[AJ · Rating 2 out of 5]

I like the concept of UPB. But reading it was boring and long. Should have gotten to the point quicker.

[Ryan Weiss · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit tough to read at times, but an excellent book on secular ethics.

[Ando · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[Julissa Dantes-castillo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty solid

This book covers a lot but I think it can be shorter and still be good. Great examples and pure logic.

[Nex Juice · Rating 4 out of 5]

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/

[Joel Richard · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Rick Rowland · Rating 2 out of 5]

OK, I admit it. I couldn't finish it. Got about half way through. I guess philosophy literature just isn't for me.

[Robert Ingle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Supremely logical and well written...