• 2 months ago
In this episode, I examine the complexities of consent and incest through the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). I address the challenge of determining when trauma impairs meaningful consent and explore the emotional defenses that complicate discussions on this topic. By drawing parallels between philosophical principles and legal frameworks, I highlight the importance of personal responsibility and the potential for modern technologies to aid in establishing consent mechanisms. I encourage listeners to confront their discomfort with clear moral solutions, emphasizing the necessity of honesty and ethical accountability in navigating these challenging issues.

GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND AUDIOBOOK!

https://peacefulparenting.com/

Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!

Also get the Truth About the French Revolution, the interactive multi-lingual philosophy AI trained on thousands of hours of my material, private livestreams, premium call in shows, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!

See you soon!

https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2022
Transcript
00:00Yo, yo, good morning everybody, Stephane Molyneux from Free Domain, and for a wee woodwork.
00:06And got a couple of great questions, fantastic, clarifying syllables of scrubbing superlatives.
00:16And somebody says, in the My Toughest Question show, Steph makes the argument that incest
00:23can be stopped under the NAP because incest would only occur in situations where one or
00:28both parties are too traumatized to give sexual consent.
00:32What standard of evidence is necessary to deem an individual too traumatized to consent?
00:37Right.
00:38So this is a paralysis question.
00:43It is designed, I'm not saying it's conscious, right?
00:45But this is a paralysis question that is designed to turn an answer into a confusion.
00:52It is actually quite annoying and inappropriate.
00:57And I actually did address this in the actual podcast or video that I did, but people have
01:05a tough time listening.
01:07Sorry, but y'all just do.
01:09And this is called an emotional defense.
01:12So if I've solved the problem of incest in the non-aggression principle, the very brief
01:17statement being that siblings who perform incest as adults would only do so because
01:26they had been severely sexually abused and traumatized as children, and therefore they
01:30cannot give meaningful consent as adults.
01:33Well, that is an argument, right?
01:38And I address this repeatedly in the show, saying that there are questions of principles
01:45and then there are questions of legality, right?
01:52So if I say murder is wrong and you say, well, philosophically, how could you prove
02:01murder in this ambiguous case, right?
02:05Doesn't fucking matter.
02:07Doesn't apply.
02:09Doesn't apply.
02:10See, there's a difference between physics and engineering, which I've talked about many
02:16times before.
02:17There's a difference between physics and engineering.
02:19So physics is discovering the universal properties and behaviors of matter and energy.
02:25Engineering is, will this bridge stand up?
02:30So if someone comes up with E equals MC squared, and then someone says, well, yeah, okay, fine,
02:39E equals MC squared, but, but what about this bridge, which may or may not stand under these
02:49extreme circumstances, but I could talk to a fucking engineer, talking to a physicist.
02:59So what happens is there's a moral principle that is put forward, and then there's this
03:05bullshit legalese edge case nonsense that gets spouted as if this adds a single thing
03:10to the conversation.
03:13And it's designed again, not consciously.
03:18It's designed to obfuscate and confuse and bury the general principle.
03:27E equals MC squared, right?
03:32Is that true or false?
03:35Well, but what would be the budget to create a nuclear reactor and can it be done efficiently?
03:44It's a totally different question in a totally different category.
03:50There's the principle, and then there is the material proof in a court of law.
03:57So the question is, is murder wrong?
04:02Well, there's a scenario where it's really kind of tough to figure out what the difference
04:08is between first and second degree murder and manslaughter and criminal negligence.
04:14It's really complicated and confusing.
04:16Who gives a shit?
04:19That's for the lawyers, not for the philosophers.
04:22The philosophers are there to tell you the murder is wrong.
04:27That's it.
04:29Going straight to edge case legalese bullshit is a way of avoiding the general principle.
04:39Is murder wrong?
04:42Yes, murder is wrong.
04:46Great.
04:47Now, coming up with some bizarre edge case sliding scale slippery slope possible proof
04:56solve this?
04:57Well, that's not the job of philosophy, and it certainly isn't the job of philosophers.
05:06The job of philosophers is like the job of the physicist.
05:10It is to define universal principles.
05:14The specific application of those universal principles is not the job of a philosopher.
05:25The physicist defines universal principles.
05:27The specific application of those principles in the material realm is the job of who?
05:35The engineers.
05:37The engineers.
05:41It's like saying E equals MC squared.
05:46What's the business case for that?
05:48What?
05:49Two and two make four.
05:53Well, what is the profitability matrix of that over the next three quarters?
05:59Well, that's taking a physics fact and turning it into a business question.
06:06Absolutely the wrong category.
06:09Doesn't matter.
06:12The truth of falsehood of a principle is not defined by specific situations of empirical
06:24proof.
06:26So in general, adults are responsible for their actions, children less so.
06:37Adults are responsible for their actions, children less so.
06:43And babies, not at all, right?
06:51We can agree on that, right?
06:52Babies are not responsible for their actions, adults are.
06:57Now that's a general principle.
07:01Now, if you say, well, define an adult down to the nanosecond and does the fundamental
07:09principle of childhood to adulthood change at the age of 18 exactly?
07:13And what about somebody who's been badly raised?
07:18And what about a kid who's super mature?
07:19And like, you're just confusing the issue.
07:23What is for the law to work out, right?
07:33It's like saying, well, India is to the east of Belgrade, right?
07:39Say India is to the east of Belgrade.
07:42Well, that's quite a lot of bees getting their drink there in that little brook.
07:48I think I will let them do that.
07:52India is to the east of Belgrade.
07:54Well, what is the budget for traveling third star hotel through India?
07:59What does that have to do with that?
08:01That's the job for the travel agent, not the geographer, right?
08:09Here are the principles of physics by which we can build a cell phone.
08:12Yes, but what features do users want and what should the price point be?
08:15How much of the cost per gig of data be?
08:18And like, that's not the right category.
08:25So this is, and look, I understand this.
08:28It's an emotional defense to avoid the principle.
08:31So when somebody puts forward a clear principle, like there is a degree of trauma that prevents
08:39consent, there is a degree of trauma that prevents consent.
08:45In other words, we say children cannot consent to sexual behaviors.
08:52Children cannot consent to sexual behaviors.
08:54We understand that.
08:55Now, is it possible that there is an adult with the mind of a child?
09:00Yes, there is.
09:02They're called developmentally handicapped.
09:06So we all understand that a woman who has a severe brain injury, maybe got attacked
09:15by meningitis as a toddler, she has a severe brain injury and has the functioning mind
09:20of a six-year-old, even into her twenties and thirties, that she cannot consent to sex.
09:25We understand that.
09:26There is a certain amount of brain damage that prevents someone from consenting to sex.
09:35The same way that we don't let somebody who's severely mentally handicapped sign a loan
09:44because they can't really process and comprehend interest and payback and work and taxes.
09:52So that's a principle.
09:57We understand that there is a degree of trauma to the brain that prevents someone from being
10:04able to give consent.
10:06Now, we know that emotional trauma damages the brain.
10:15Abuse and trauma as a child damages the brain.
10:19This is why I've said for almost 20 years that in a free society, parents will get significant
10:26considerations for submitting their children to non-invasive brain scans to detect whether
10:31there's any trauma or abuse going on.
10:33It's very simple to do.
10:36And the fact that we don't do any of this tells you exactly who runs society.
10:40It ain't the nice people.
10:43So we accept that, right?
10:46I mean, unless you're saying that somebody with a brain equivalent to a six-year-old
10:52can consent to sex, in which case, I don't want to have you in the conversation because
10:56that's sinister and creepy as hell.
11:00So I'm not saying that the guy who wrote this is.
11:03So the principle is there is a certain amount of brain damage that prevents meaningful consent,
11:14shortcuts meaningful consent.
11:17And we know that.
11:18We accept that.
11:19That's all over the law, right?
11:21Let's let Mr. Spider have his web.
11:26It's already part of the law.
11:27It's already part of common law that somebody below, say, a certain IQ threshold does not
11:34have the same rights as others do.
11:42And also does not have the same responsibilities that others do.
11:45We all accept and understand that.
11:48And of course, if you've spent time around people who are developmentally handicapped
11:53mentally, I'm sorry, I just, you just need to know that.
11:58And when I was in daycare, there were some kids in my daycare class where I worked for
12:04a couple of years who were fairly severely developmentally handicapped and they just
12:09couldn't really function nearly as well as the other kids.
12:13Of course, that's how you know there's an issue, right?
12:18So if you just don't have experience with any of that stuff, well, you just need to
12:22learn from people who do.
12:25So that we understand.
12:29There's a certain amount of brain damage that effectively prevents the ability to consent
12:37to loans, to complex contracts, to sexual activity, to whatever, right?
12:43And this is also true of medical treatment as well.
12:46There are people who are severely developmentally handicapped and it is their parents who have
12:50to decide on their medical treatments because they cannot decide for themselves, you know.
12:56Now that, as a principle, we accept that.
13:02So then, rather than accept that principle and say, you know, that's a really good solution
13:14to the problem, that's obviously, it is indisputable.
13:20If you say that, it's almost a tautology, people without the ability to consent cannot
13:27consent.
13:28Right.
13:29That's the big genius, big brain stuff I'm bringing to the world.
13:33The tautology of people without the capacity to consent can't consent.
13:38Yep.
13:39Okay, so we accept that.
13:42So then, rather than accept that and say, okay, here's a way forward that we can work
13:46with this, you get stressed.
13:50Because once you accept the principle, then as a reasonable person who wants the world
13:56to be better, once you accept the principle, you are obligated to advance it, right?
14:09And that's scary.
14:10I get that.
14:12That can be alarming.
14:13That can be upsetting.
14:14That can set you at odds with people.
14:17That can be unpleasant.
14:18That can be difficult.
14:19And that's fine.
14:20I understand that.
14:21Nobody's saying you have to.
14:24But if I put forward a principle that nobody can really disagree with, of course, people
14:29without the ability to consent can't consent.
14:32Oh, look at that.
14:36I think these are baby turkeys up here.
14:40I probably won't be able to get very close.
14:42So sorry.
14:44This philosophical lecture is interrupted for a nature moment.
14:51I've seen these guys out here once before.
14:54It's very cool.
14:56I don't know if we'll be able to keep them in view.
15:00They have this ability to despawn.
15:02It's pretty wild.
15:03Let me just see here.
15:09Oh, they're there.
15:12They're there.
15:14I don't even want to zoom in.
15:17Let's see if we can get a little closer.
15:21I move about as quietly as a buffalo in heat.
15:26Did they just despawn again?
15:37I want to have one more look to see if that's fine.
15:48Where did you go?
15:49Cut an eye, Joe.
15:50No, they'd probably come back in today.
15:55They wouldn't be in here.
15:56It's too easy to chase them.
15:58So I'm sure they went back into the bush here.
16:02Ah, suddenly we've gone to Bear Grylls hunting style.
16:06Will he survive his encounter with the death turkeys of babiness?
16:15The problem is I don't even know if I'm heading in the right direction to catch these guys.
16:19But anyway, it was pretty cool that we saw them.
16:23Excellent.
16:24We love ourselves some gorgeous nature.
16:31I put forward a principle that solves a big problem, which is,
16:35how do you deal with the problem of incest?
16:38Well, incest is a manifestation of brain damage,
16:43which is the result of severe pedophilic child abuse.
16:49And that's the solution, right?
16:52That people who've suffered from brutal levels of child rape
16:56and being forced to have sex with each other as children,
17:00they are going to not be able to consent as adults.
17:03Easy peasy.
17:04Horrible, horrible topic.
17:06Wretched, ugly, vicious, brutal, evil topic.
17:09But that's the solution.
17:11Now, if you accept that as a solution, right,
17:18then what are you going to do?
17:21Well, you're going to have to go out and talk about that solution.
17:26Right?
17:28There's a solution.
17:29And then you're going to upset people.
17:34When you have fairly simple answers to questions
17:39that are supposedly very complex.
17:41Now, the answer was not easy.
17:43But once you understand it, the answer is rather simple, right?
17:46So once you have these answers,
17:50then you are honor bound to go out into the world
17:58and answer these questions, right?
18:00And solve these problems for people.
18:02In the same way that if you learn the Heimlich maneuver
18:08and some guy is choking to death in a restaurant,
18:12are you somewhat, to some degree, honor bound
18:18to go and help that person who's choking to death
18:23on a chicken McNugget?
18:28I don't know why Scottish chicken balls are on the menu,
18:30but I don't run McDonald's.
18:34So, you then have to go out and promulgate the answer, right?
18:42But, you don't want to do that.
18:45And I understand.
18:46I understand that.
18:48There are times when I've made a moral leap forward publicly
18:51that feels like I'm stepping off a cliff
18:53hoping that a wingsuit is going to fall onto my body
18:55and an updraft is going to keep me from the vicious rocks below.
18:59I get that.
19:00I understand that.
19:01I sympathize with that.
19:02But, to be in the realm of philosophy,
19:05the first requirement is honesty.
19:08Let's be honest.
19:11So, if you say,
19:12wow, that's a great answer to the problem of incest.
19:16Incest is a violation of the non-aggression principle
19:19because neither party can consent
19:21because of brain damage through trauma.
19:25So, what happens is,
19:29you get upset that there's an answer
19:32because you like toying with the question
19:34so that you feel like you're in pursuit of virtue.
19:36You don't like it when there's an answer
19:38because that means you have to go and talk about that answer with people, right?
19:42And that's upsetting, right?
19:46I understand.
19:47I sympathize.
19:49So, yeah, I get it.
19:51So, just be honest about that
19:53and say that the answer makes me uncomfortable
19:57because I don't really want to go out and talk about virtue in the world, right?
20:06Because when you talk about virtue in the world
20:08and you spread virtue in the world,
20:10you step severely on the toes of evildoers, right?
20:16And evildoers will fight back, right?
20:21There's another.
20:22Man, the spiders have been busy today.
20:26Probably trying to catch the death turkeys of doom, right?
20:31So, we understand all of that, right?
20:33And again, I sympathize.
20:35But just be honest.
20:37So, when someone comes up with an answer,
20:40which I have,
20:41about the problem of the NAP,
20:43the non-aggression principle,
20:44and incest,
20:48then you should go and talk to people about that.
20:51But you don't want to do that
20:53because you fear blowback.
20:55Again, I sympathize and understand.
20:57But let's just be honest about it.
20:59You'd rather talk about morality internally.
21:03You'd rather nip and tug
21:05and do that dog with a bone worrying about morality
21:09rather than have any actual answers
21:11and go out into the world and talk about them.
21:13I understand that too.
21:15I sympathize.
21:17But let's be honest.
21:20What you do instead,
21:21to avoid the anxiety of actually having to go out into the world
21:24and talk about virtue,
21:27what do you do instead?
21:29Well,
21:31what you do instead
21:33is you come up with
21:36sliding scale, slippery slope, edge case legalese nonsense,
21:41and then pretend that there's no principle.
21:46Murder is wrong.
21:48Well, what about when there's no witnesses
21:50and there's only circumstantial evidence
21:52and there's no body?
21:54Okay, that's a whole different matter.
21:56That's engineering, not physics.
21:59And you cannot disprove physics with engineering.
22:03If I say,
22:05these are the properties of balsa wood,
22:08and you say,
22:10well, if these are the properties of balsa wood,
22:13well, they can't be the properties of balsa wood
22:16because, oh, look at that.
22:17I'm so sorry to keep interrupting.
22:19There is a, I'm not going to go this way.
22:21Look at that.
22:22There is a lovely shimmery spider web.
22:27There.
22:29I don't know if that's, oh, is that coming through?
22:31Uh, which side is the camera?
22:34That is the camera.
22:36Yeah, probably can't get it, but I'm not,
22:38I'm not disturbed with that work.
22:40That's a lot of property rights to violate
22:42from our little eight-legged friends.
22:44Six-legged? Eight-legged.
22:46Oh, just walked through another one.
22:47Okay, I give up, but at least that one.
22:49Also, it had a spider on it.
22:51Not my favorite beast in the world.
22:54So, you can't say,
22:56well, okay, so these are the properties of balsa wood,
22:59but how much balsa wood would you need
23:01to build a suspension bridge?
23:04Wouldn't make any sense, right?
23:07Okay, E equals mc squared allows you to build
23:09a nuclear power plant,
23:11but what are the environmental issues
23:13with a nuclear power plant?
23:14Totally different matter.
23:16Is a nuclear power plant cost-effective
23:19given the liability issues involved?
23:21That's a totally different matter.
23:24Implementing principles
23:26is not the test of principles, right?
23:30E equals mc squared.
23:32Well, it's very hard to build a nuclear reactor.
23:34What is the exact perfect price point
23:36of the nuclear reactor?
23:37What's the best cost-benefit kilowatt-hour
23:39per sale price, and would the consumers be there,
23:41and would there be environmental issues
23:43and liability issues, and what about health
23:45and safety issues?
23:46Totally different matter.
23:48Does E equals mc squared?
23:50Is energy times mass times the speed of light squared?
23:55Yes, yes it is.
23:57So, the practical implementation
23:59of the moral principle
24:01is not at all the test of the moral principle.
24:06It just ain't.
24:08But you say,
24:11I can't accept the moral principle
24:13until all possible objective implementations
24:17of that moral principle
24:18have been proven syllogistically,
24:20which is impossible, right?
24:23In the law, it's proof beyond reasonable doubt.
24:25It's not syllogistical proof, right?
24:29Syllogistical proof is 100% proof
24:31or metamortal Socrates is a man,
24:33therefore Socrates is mortal.
24:34That's 100% proof.
24:39This is deductive reasoning,
24:41which is about probabilities and variability, right?
24:43So, in the civil case,
24:44it's the preponderance of evidence, 51%.
24:47In criminal cases,
24:49it's proof beyond reasonable doubt, 95% plus.
24:52And then you can always come up with some situation
24:55that is ambiguous, right?
24:58That's really, really tough to prove.
25:01All right?
25:03Now, that usually is not something
25:04that happens in the law.
25:06In any objective legal system, right?
25:08Any reasonably objective and fair legal system,
25:12you won't end up with edge cases.
25:16Because if, let's say, there's a murder,
25:20you only have very loosey-goosey
25:22circumstantial evidence,
25:23you don't have a body,
25:24you don't have a motive,
25:25and the guy has an alibi
25:27that seems fairly reasonable,
25:28though it's not perfect.
25:30Well, that won't end up in a court of law
25:33because there's not enough evidence to prosecute.
25:38So, the prosecution happens
25:40when there's overwhelming evidence,
25:43proof beyond a reasonable doubt,
25:45or at least a chance there too,
25:47a chance thereof, right?
25:51So, your edge cases, right?
25:55What standard of evidence is necessary
25:57to deem an individual too traumatized to consent?
26:01Well, now you're talking about legal proof.
26:04And when you have legal proof
26:06in a fair and just legal system,
26:09if there is not overwhelming evidence,
26:12the case will not proceed.
26:14So, all of the issues that you're talking about
26:16are filtered out by any rational legal system
26:20from the beginning.
26:22Prima facie, right?
26:24From the beginning.
26:25So, oh, well, there's this real edge case,
26:28maybe the person can consent,
26:30maybe they can't consent.
26:31It's really tough to tell.
26:32They say there wasn't a problem,
26:33but, well, that case almost certainly won't go to trial.
26:37Now, clearly, a woman in a coma cannot consent to sex.
26:42That case would go to trial, right?
26:47Clearly, an adult woman who voluntarily consents to sex,
26:49and let's say it's on recording or something like that,
26:53well, that's not going to go to trial either.
26:57So, what you're doing is you're saying,
27:00what about the maybe-maybe 51-49 edge cases
27:05in criminal matters?
27:08How do we prove those?
27:09Well, the answer is you don't.
27:11You don't need to.
27:12Because in terms of criminal proceedings,
27:17again, even in the current system to some degree,
27:20but in a rational moral legal system,
27:24edge cases don't go to trial.
27:27So the principle is never manifested, right?
27:33Now, as far as what evidence is necessary
27:39to deem an individual too traumatized to consent,
27:43well, in order for the law to be just,
27:53there has to be some objectivity and predictability
27:56in the legal standard, right?
28:00So, in a rational legal system, there would be,
28:06in any cases where consent is not obvious
28:09because the person is clearly mentally competent,
28:12they have a law degree and a job,
28:15and they are the lawyer from my novel,
28:19the future, right?
28:22So when somebody is clearly mentally competent,
28:25then you know that they're not too traumatized,
28:31let's say.
28:32Now, let's just do an IQ thing, right?
28:34So if somebody clearly has a high IQ,
28:36they're a lawyer, doctor, philosopher,
28:38well, the highest, of course,
28:40well, then you don't need any proof.
28:42So let's say that somebody is on the edge, right?
28:49On the edge and could be considered
28:52not able to consent in certain situations.
28:54So that's a problem that society has, right?
28:57And it's the same with buying alcohol.
29:01If I go to buy alcohol, nobody cards me
29:05because I'm almost 58 years old,
29:07so I don't get carded, right?
29:11But if someone is much younger,
29:15then they will be carded.
29:18And there are places that say, you know,
29:19we card everyone 30 and under, right?
29:22Okay, so that's an edge case.
29:25Somebody can look older, somebody can look younger,
29:29so you need to card them.
29:34So when it comes to consent,
29:38then somebody who might be somewhere
29:41on the spectrum or someone on the edge
29:43of being able to consent or not
29:45would simply have a brain scan
29:47answer some questions, get a cognitive test,
29:50and then they would get a consent card or not
29:52in the same way you get a card called
29:54I can consent to buy alcohol.
29:59So where there's an edge case,
30:00this would be a very small proportion of the population.
30:04And if you have sex with someone
30:09who is mentally handicapped
30:11and has been tested to be non-consensual
30:13and doesn't have a consent card,
30:15then you would be liable.
30:17If you have sex with someone
30:20who is cognitively challenged in some way
30:22but has been deemed through
30:23some relatively objective process
30:26to be able to consent,
30:29then they would show you their consent card
30:31and you would be good to go.
30:36Now, you could, of course, roll the dice
30:38in the same way that if a woman looks young
30:43and you're concerned about having sex
30:46with a woman who's underage,
30:48if the woman looks young,
30:49you will ask for ID.
30:52This is nothing new.
30:53This is nothing new.
30:54Don't get so shocked.
30:55It's like absolutely nothing new.
30:56So if you are dating a woman
31:02and she seems very young,
31:04you will ask for an ID check.
31:07You will ask for ID
31:12in order to ensure that she is of age
31:15to consent to sexual activity.
31:17She's 20.
31:18She's not 60 or 15 or whatever it is.
31:21It depends on where you are.
31:23So that's this sort of birth certificate
31:27or the driver's license.
31:28These are consent cards.
31:30I'm old enough to consent to sexual activity.
31:35This is why some of the rather challenged women
31:39at the age of 18 say,
31:42oh, I'm 18.
31:43I can go and start an OnlyFans site
31:44or something like that.
31:45So there's a consent card.
31:47They can't consent before 18.
31:48They can after.
31:49Oh, how beautiful.
31:52It's always important that you guys
31:55enjoy the glory of nature
31:56as well as the glory of my chatterbox,
31:59vaguely Iron Filing's chin head.
32:02So what standard of evidence is necessary
32:06to deem an individual too traumatized to consent?
32:09Well, there would be an objective standard
32:13that would be developed on edge cases.
32:15There would be a card or a QR code
32:18or something like that which says,
32:20although this person appears to be
32:22of somewhat limited cognitive function,
32:24they have been tested and found able to consent.
32:28And you wouldn't just need that
32:29for sexual activity, right?
32:30If somebody does not appear to be too bright
32:32and they want to get a complex loan
32:34or something like that,
32:35well, you would be on the hook
32:41if they fail to pay it back.
32:42Like if you make some predatory loan
32:44to somebody who is severely mentally handicapped,
32:47then you'll be the hook for that
32:49and you'd be considered a pretty bad guy.
32:51But on the other hand,
32:53we don't want to limit people
32:54just because they happen to not be as smart
32:56to not having general economic,
32:58social, and sexual participation
33:00and romantic participation in society.
33:02So yeah, there'd be some objective test
33:04on edge cases that would give you
33:07knowledge of liability.
33:10Or not, in the same way that there are
33:12objective tests for age
33:14to make sure that you're not dating someone
33:16who's underage.
33:18That is the general approach.
33:23And then you say,
33:24well, what exactly would the test be?
33:28What exactly would the test be?
33:30So then you're asking me
33:32what kind of brain scanning technology
33:34in a free and liberated society,
33:36which is hundreds of years of the future,
33:38what kind of brain scanning technology
33:40and objective standards
33:41and what comparison would there be
33:42to healthily raised children,
33:43which the vast majority of people would be?
33:46So Steph, you need to tell me
33:48exactly what brain scans will be available
33:51in 300 years
33:54and exactly how this process is going to work.
33:57Otherwise, your principles don't matter.
33:59Now, come on.
34:00I mean, you understand that that is
34:03a ridiculous requirement.
34:05That is...
34:07I mean, the fact that you would lack self-knowledge
34:09to not know that you're spiraling into
34:12like bizarrely gaudy and not lower-intestine
34:16gotcha territory.
34:18Like, you just need to understand your own motives.
34:20Okay, but what about this?
34:21Okay, okay, I get it.
34:22You're anxious to come to a moral conclusion.
34:24You don't want to talk about it.
34:25Okay, then fine.
34:26Just say, well, Steph, that's a good answer.
34:29But I feel...
34:30Man, I feel really uncomfortable about this.
34:32I don't know why.
34:33I got this weird anxiety about
34:35going out and talking about this stuff.
34:37It's like, okay, I get that.
34:38I respect that.
34:39I sympathize with that.
34:40I understand that.
34:42And I don't hold you at fault for that.
34:44It is scary to talk to the world about virtue.
34:47Right?
34:48It is scary to talk to the world about virtue.
34:51Because it's not like all the most virtuous people
34:53are in charge.
34:54Far from it.
34:55So, I understand that.
34:56But just be honest.
34:57Don't say, well, I would love to go,
34:58Steph, I would love to go and talk about your
35:00answer to this moral problem or this issue.
35:03I...
35:04But there's still a couple of knots
35:06that need to be tied up.
35:07There's still a couple of loose ends that need...
35:09You just haven't met my standards of...
35:11That's not it.
35:13I've proven more
35:16in the area of essential,
35:18society,
35:20free will,
35:22virtue ethics,
35:23self-ownership,
35:24property rights.
35:25I've proven more than just about anybody.
35:28Right?
35:29And if you're like, well, Steph, okay,
35:30it's true that you have massively advanced
35:32these topics.
35:33But what about edge cases 300 years from now?
35:38Okay, got it.
35:39Yeah.
35:40Okay, you don't want to talk about this stuff.
35:41You want to feel like you're interested in morality
35:43because that makes you feel good.
35:44But you don't want to actually do the rather
35:45difficult and dangerous business of going out
35:47and talking about morality in the world.
35:50Or to put it another way,
35:52there are people who desperately don't want you
35:54to talk about virtue in their life
35:55who are putting these ridiculous questions
35:57into your head.
35:58These ridiculous objections
36:00that require omniscience,
36:01time travel,
36:03infinite perfection,
36:04scientific knowledge which hasn't been achieved yet,
36:06medical tests hundreds of years in the future.
36:08But Steph, man, I'm telling you,
36:10once you pass that standard,
36:13maybe, just maybe,
36:16I'll accept your moral arguments.
36:19And no, you won't.
36:20No, you won't.
36:21Right?
36:22This is the yes, bad thing.
36:23You won't.
36:24You simply won't accept my moral arguments, right?
36:25You won't.
36:26All that will happen is
36:27you will just come up with other ones.
36:29And I can feel,
36:30I can feel this collective
36:31bored brain bubbling away
36:33there saying, okay,
36:34well, but, okay,
36:35so that one's been solved.
36:36But what about this one?
36:37And what about this one?
36:38I know, funny voice is not an argument,
36:40but I've been dealing with this crap for 40 years.
36:43So, I hope you won't mind me
36:45if I make a little bit of mockery
36:48of this nonsense.
36:50If you get a great solution to a moral problem
36:53and the first thing you come up with is
36:55edge cases that require omniscience to solve
36:57and technology hundreds of years in the future,
37:00then you're not interested in answers.
37:02Right?
37:03So, it's a great answer.
37:04It's innovative.
37:05It's creative.
37:06It's in full conformity with common law.
37:08It's in full conformity with
37:10the non-aggression principle
37:12and voluntaryist society.
37:14So, it's a great answer
37:16about this incense question.
37:18Right?
37:21So, if you are nitpicking at this,
37:24you just don't want to answer it.
37:26You want to have endless questions
37:27and it is part of the general
37:29persons from poor luck problem where
37:31you just want to have me scurrying all over
37:33hell's half acre trying to satisfy
37:35your bottomless needs for proof
37:36which will never be satisfied.
37:37I mean, don't get me wrong.
37:39I wanted to go for a walk this morning
37:40and I think it's an interesting exercise
37:42to go through this.
37:43But, you just need to be honest
37:45with yourself, with everyone else
37:47and say,
37:48you know,
37:50I just want to
37:52think about and come up with problems
37:54for philosophy and morality.
37:56I don't actually want to go out there
37:59and promote virtue in the world.
38:00I just want to talk about it
38:02and paralyze people
38:03who are making any smidge of progress
38:05with my completely unrealistic
38:07requirements that are
38:09complete category errors
38:11and demand the impossible to be satisfied.
38:14Okay.
38:15Boy, you must be fun to go on a date with.
38:17So, you just need to look inward, right?
38:19You just need to look within
38:21and you need to say to yourself,
38:22why does it bother me so much
38:24that there's a clear answer
38:25to this problem of incest?
38:27Why does it bother me?
38:29But, don't pretend that
38:31it's just your perfectionism
38:32and desire for absolute certainty.
38:34That is the issue.
38:35That ain't it, brother.
38:37But, I appreciate the question.
38:38Freedomain.com slash tonight.
38:39Thanks, Emile.
38:40Bye.