Stefan Molyneux is a popular libertarian broadcaster who has in recent years acquired a considerable following. In Universally Preferable Behavior, he takes on an ambitious task. He endeavors to provide a rational basis for morality. Should he succeed, he would not only have achieved something of monumental importance; he would also have rendered a great service to libertarianism. Molyneux's system of morality has resolutely libertarian implications. If he is right, surely a time for rejoicing is at hand.
It would be cruel to arouse false expectations, so I had better say at once that Molyneux does not succeed in his noble goal. He fails, and fails miserably. His arguments are often preposterously bad.
Let us first be clear, in his own words, on what Molyneux wishes to accomplish:
The question before us is thus: can some preferences be objective, i.e., universal? … When I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people should prefer, not what they always do prefer. (p. 33, emphasis omitted)
These preferences, furthermore, have to do with morality, behavior that can be forcibly imposed on people. "Those preferences which can be considered binding upon others can be termed 'universal preferences' or 'moral rules'" (p. 40).
Is there, then, behavior that is in his sense universally preferable? Our ever-generous author has an abundance of arguments in support of a positive answer to this question. His first claim is that the very fact of engaging in inquiry over the existence of universally preferable behavior suffices to answer the question in the affirmative. If I am engaged in debate about this topic, must I not prefer truth to falsehood? An attempt to deny this leads to contradiction: "If I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behavior is valid, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood — as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely" (p. 40).
Molyneux is certainly right that someone who wants to discover whether universally preferable behavior exists, prefers, while trying to find the answer, truth over falsehood; but how does this generate a preference to correct others with mistaken views? Molyneux wrongly supposes that if someone wants to discover the truth, he must be in engaged in an actual debate with someone else. Why must he? Further, what has any of this to do with enforceable obligations, the ostensible subject of his inquiry?
Molyneux has many more arguments on offer. How can we deny the existence of universally preferable behavior, he asks: does not life itself depend on it? "Thus it is impossible that anyone can logically argue against universally preferable behavior, since if he is alive to argue, he must have followed universally preferable behaviors such as breathing, eating and drinking."
Is it not obvious that Molyneux has confused two different senses of "universally preferable behavior"? Biological laws are, as even our author elsewhere realizes, descriptive regularities; Molyneux fails utterly to show that acting in accord with such laws to keep oneself alive has anything to do with moral obligation.
Molyneux is not content with "proving" that moral obligations exist. He also has distinctive views about the nature of these obligations. Moral rules must be universal, in a very strong sense:
I also cannot logically argue that it is wrong for some people to murder, but right for other people to murder. Since all human beings share common physical properties and requirements, proposing one rule for one person and the opposite for another is invalid — it is like proposing a physics theory that says that some rocks fall down, while other rocks fall up. Not only is it illogical, it contradicts an observed fact of reality, which is that human beings as a species share common characteristics, and so cannot be subjected to opposing rules. (p. 44, emphasis omitted)
Molyneux offers no argument that the rules of morality must respond only to the characteristics that define the human species. If someone proposed a rule of the form, "Human beings who meet such-and-such requirements, and not others, may kill under the following circumstances," no doubt we should want to look at the reasons alleged for this claim very closely; but we could not dismiss the proposal outright because it draws a distinction between two classes of people. Arbitrary appeals to the laws of physics or biology have nothing to do with the case.[2]
Although I have so far been critical of Molyneux, I am happy to give him credit for an excellent idea. He suggests that a good test for a moral theory is its ability to arrive at the correct result for obvious cases, like rape, murder, and theft. If a theory cannot show that a rule that purported to make such conduct obligatory is ill-formed, the theory should be rejected. Molyneux thinks he can show exactly this for his own account of universally preferable behavior.
His "argument" against a rule that mandated rape must be read to be believed. I hasten to add that there is nothing to be said in favor of rape: to the contrary, it is obviously morally horrendous. But even here, Molyneux founders. He says,
If "rape" is a moral good, then "not raping" must be a moral evil — thus it is impossible for two men in the same room to both be moral at the same time, since only one of them can be a rapist at any given moment — and he can only be a rapist if the other man becomes his victim. (p. 66)
Incredibly, Molyneux takes the rule he is considering to be one that requires people to be continuously engaged in rape. It never occurs to him to take the rule as mandating, "at some time or other, you ought to attempt rape," an evil imperative that would escape his strictures. Evidently this construal would violate his bizarre requirements about universality: a morally required action is one that everyone must perform at the same time, all the time.
Yes, I read this earlier today and all of the Molyneuxites are all up in arms about it. While I like a lot of what Stefan does and often agree with him, he does often use faulty logic. If he is going to fancy himself a "philosopher", then he must do much better.
ReplyDeleteHe's a great guy to have in the liberty movement, but I would just as soon forget that he ever wrote this book.
I find Molyneux to be kind of boring.
ReplyDeleteI find Molyneux to be terrifying. Google 'molyneux defoo'.
ReplyDeleteHes hardly scary. He only explained what should be obvious to anyone: If you are in an abusive relationship, leave. I have watched many of his videos and listened to a few of his audio books, he always urges listeners and readers to work out their problems with therapy. But its never a good idea to stick around with people who abuse you, whether physical, mental or emotionally. This nonsense about Stefan wanting loyal donators is asinine. No one gives up running a software company in the hopes he can brainwash people into donating money to support free material.
DeleteApparently you think the right to associate or disassociate is terrifying.
DeleteExcept that, in FDR practice, 'abuse' has a rather idiosyncratic meaning, a meaning that those of us in the reality-based community call 'fucking batshit insane'. But thanks for playing.
DeleteI'm still missing the part where you have anything other than a completely subjective opinion on Molyneux. I'm being kind by not simply accusing you of launching ad hominems.
DeleteMaybe you can start by using valid arguments to prove that he is WRONG.
In the meantime, you know what they say about opinions and assholes, right?
Agreed, I've only heard him a couple times. But trying to prove everyone could have the same morals on any subject would be mpossible to prove, Higgs boson tough, not sure it could be done no one is the same except we all are born and we all die. Okay maybe taxes
ReplyDeleteWenzel, you're really alienating your followers with this stuff. I happen to be a fan of Stefan Molyneux, John Allison, Rand Paul, as well as some people you've attacked in the past, like Peter Schiff and Bob Murphy. In the end, I would choose any one of these guys over you because they don't stoop to that level.
ReplyDeleteWhat? Robert Murphy, Peter Schiff, and Stephan Molyneux don't bring up the things they disagree with others on? Robert Murphy, for example, joined Gene Callahan to go after Hoppe's argumentation ethics theory. Robert Murphy has also came at Wenzel. Peter Schiff had Wenzel on his show and wouldn't even let him get a word in edge wise. It's perfectly fine if you like these other guys better than Wenzel but don't act like they don't go after those they disagree with.
DeletePersonally, I like Schiff, Murphy, and Molyneux but I have no problem when other libertarians disagree with them. They are big boys and can handle criticism. Most of us aren't scared of an intellectual debate. I, for one, love them because they either correct an error in my thinking or stregthen my knowledge on a particular topic. What a boring world it would be if libertarians didn't debate each other or other schools of thought.
Hey Bob, just want to say that, personally speaking, I have become a big fan of yours BECAUSE you challenge people in interviews. I hope you will ignore the critics and do what you've been doing because this world needs more people who actually understand economics/civil liberties/etc that aren't afraid to challenge others.
DeleteDebate is a good thing!
-Kevin
I took a class on Objectivism over that the Mises Academy, taught by David Gordon. It was a joke. He could hardly articulate the Objectivist perspective, and all of his teaching effort was spent trying to explain why everything about it was wrong.
ReplyDeleteWell, he sure has done a pretty damn good job of articulating the problems with Molyneux.
DeleteAs for his understanding of Objectivisim, everyone can judge for themselves this Friday:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/truth-about-ayn-rands-atlas-shrugged.html
It's ok, not everyone has decent hearing.
DeleteWenzel, are you always such a shill for Lew Rockwell?
ReplyDeleteMake no mistake it was Lew who told David to go after Stefan.
Actually, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Until, two or three weeks ago, I had no idea who Stefan Molyneux was.
DeleteChris Rossini, the executive producer of the Robert Wenzel Show, suggested I have Molyneux on as a guest, after some quick googling of Molyneux's name and listening to two Molyneux videos I nixed the idea.
That's why I posted Gordon's review, it fell in line with my initial suspicions about Molyneux.
Further, it just so happens that I called David last night to talk about his upcoming Atlas Shrugged lecture, and the topic of how he ended up reviewing Molneux's book came up. It's a hilarious story and it had me in stitches on the phone, but it's a story for David to tell, not me. But, rest assured it had nothing to do with Lew Rockwell.
See why I oppose conspiracy theories so much Bob? Nutcases like the guy you responded to is a case in point.
DeleteWait, Lew Rockwell has a problem with Molyneux? Or vice versa?
DeleteI happen to agree with you Anon.
DeleteCall me a "conspiracy nut", but it seems fairly obvious to me.
I have to admit I love seeing Gordon vs. Molyneux from a debate perspective.
I could just do without the pettiness that has plagued the "libertarian" movement as a whole.
Of course, if Molyneux is so "wrong"-so as to not even garner an interview by Wenzel-one has to naturally ask how LRC even made the mistake of allowing him a voice/archive in the first place.
As much as LRC contributors decry the "memory hole" our glorious gov't(and media) likes to shove people/events down, it seems as if they've done the same to Molyneux in some respects.
Gordon is a tremendous figure in the movement, it's too bad he sullied some of his valid arguments on UPB with what seems to be attacks of a personal nature at times. But then again, maybe I'm just misreading things.
The problem is not conspiracy theories, but CTs that are not grounded in fact.
DeleteYes, LRC dropped Molyneux down the memory hole. (I prefer to say they 'deFOOed' him.) Why shouldn't they have? He's a liability. He deserves it. The sort of guy who says that parent-child relationships are now pretty much categorically screwed-up, irreparably screwed-up, that they're unforgivable child abuse by definition, and that loving one's parents is insipid foolishness, an offense to reason, is not the sort of person a sane person wants to be associated with. I'd say LRC is doing a pretty good job by not outright saying they hope some suckered kid's mother force-feeds Molyneux a box of Hornady's finest for the trouble he's caused.
DeleteUnger,
DeleteIs that why they did it? I haven't actually seen a definitive story on it.
Molyneux would be wrecked by Gordon in any debate. Or Hoppe, whose ideas he is pretty much utilising in a sloppy manner. I don't have an issue with Molyneux per se but he isn't a philosopher. He is a second-hand dealer in ideas. He is effective at getting the message out but in some ways his arguments border on being facile.
Delete@ RW
Delete"Until, two or three weeks ago, I had no idea who Stefan Molyneux was. "
Oh...
That wouldn't be the time of the Walter Block interview in which Block said he'd "forgiven" Stefan for having the nerve to criticize Ron Paul, would it?
Because in that case, if you truly want debate and criticism of wrong or false viewpoints, you can also do us a favor by exposing the emotional hysterical rant of Block against people like Molyneux and McElroy, which is rife with hypocrisy, non-arguments, fallacies and/or insinuations.
http://lewrockwell.com/block/block180.html
Otherwise i may have to wonder if you are indeed just a LRC shill. Because the timing of this article after that Block interview is now just a bit too obvious to me.
@ unger (July 5, 2012 8:54 PM)
DeleteOh, so they dropped him because he said a bunch of controversial things? Wow, good on them. Because if there is anything LRC is known for, it is always staying on the safe side of controversy.
By the way, how is that proof that Molyneux is wrong coming along? Because thus far the only thing i see is the kind of casual dismissals and psychologizing, and condoning of exiling (from LRC apparently) that we see more than enough of with the mainstream and GOP contra libertarians like RON PAUL.
But maybe you think those methods and arguments were sufficient too.
@Anon 9:38: LRC has never been in the habit of airing grievances, so I can't say for sure, but A: I can't think of any other reason why they would've dropped him, and B: it's hard to imagine that Rockwell, a Catholic, would knowingly give a platform to someone who very explicitly says that raising children in any religion at all is a particularly vicious and totally unforgivable sort of child abuse, which automatically warrants immediate defooing.
Delete@Tony: There's a difference between 'controversial' and 'warrants a thorough beating'. If you don't know that 'down with the state' is the former and 'your family taking you to church is the vilest sort of child abuse and you should immediately divorce yourself from them forever' is the latter, I have nothing to say to you.
Wait, so instead of having Molyneux on your show to discuss your objections, you simply nixed the interview? But when you have objections to Gary Johnson's arguments you have him on and explain them?
DeleteWhy the difference? You admit you only watched two of his videos, and based on 2 videos out of thousands you decide hes not worth your time? I'm sorry, but this sounds a little fishy.
As I said in my initial comment, I had no idea who Molyneux was. I knew who Gary Johnson was and that he had a following.
DeleteMolyneux just looked like a very odd duck out there---one of very many. Now that I am aware that Molyneux has a significant following, I have asked Chris Rossini, executive producer of The Robert Wenzel Show, to invite him on the show.
It would be impossible to have every odd duck out there on the show---and quite boring. However, given that Molyneux does have a following, it is worthwhile getting him on the show to discuss how he views the world.
The ball is in Molyneux's court.
Excellent. I am very glad to hear that. Molyneux has always been up for debates, and is working on a video response to David Gordon and a debate request with him as well. I look forward to the discussion, minus the sarcasm that frequents comment posts (And by that, I am NOT implying that you Dr. Wenzel engaged in that behavior). This is how we should be handling these kinds of disagreements.
DeleteSick.
ReplyDeleteMy theory is that Molyneux is a well-funded CIA agent, like William F. Buckley, seeking to mess up the libertarian movement.
ReplyDeleteJust like Buckley undermined American conservatism by pretending libertarianism wasn't a significant part of it and that the goal of American conservatives should be to interfere with foreign countries. Molyneux, who mysteriously has a TV/radio show, seeks to undermine the foundations of libertarianism among those stupid enough to pay attention to him.
He's really not that bad. I could see this comment being made for someone like Alex Jones, but not Molyneux.
DeleteI became an anarcho-capitalist after watching one of his debates (and months of pondering it).
That said, I prefer people who are more careful in constructing their arguments to avoid confusion like Stephan Kinsella.
I think Alex Jones is terrific. Why would the government underwrite him when he casts suspicion on everything the government does?
DeleteGordon did not articulate any problems with anything. I hardly see any arguments in his review at all. He obviously did not read Molyneux's book thoroughly, because he raises objections that are addressed in other chapters of the book(ex. theft). Not only that, he makes some rather unprofessional implications about Molyneux.
ReplyDeleteIf we as libertarians were going to actually practice what we say we know is true, we would be criticizing each other in a much more productive manner than this. I am rather disappointed with this review.