Total Pageviews

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

UPB is a crock

There are lots of sources on the web that reveal what Molyneux is really all about. I can say that this specific site is responsible for reduced revenues to FDR. This is done mostly by warning the visitors not to get too far into the Molyneux family abyss known as FDR. I have more than a few thank you's on that front. So far so good. With any luck, Moly will start missing his mortgage payments and have to go back to making an honest living.

What I have tried to avoid are discussions of the so called philosophical foundation of FDR. I have taken a detour or two along those lines and here is another one.

I am going to take issue with Molyneux's self promoted brain power and respond to a group of posts that all involve nasty epithets and challenge me to take on Moly's philosophy directly. That would be easy enough to do. I am an objectivist. I used to listen to Moly's early podcasts. I know what Moly was originally all about. I know where he went wrong originally. And by originally, I mean his very first podcast. But I really don't have to. Many already have done the job better than I ever could. Maybe the best analysis of Molyneux is done by Danny Shahar.

I think Danny only addresses on one aspect of Molyneux's bleating, but it is a good one. It is a critique of universally preferable behavior. This is supposedly Molyneux's monumental work on secular ethics. In reality it is a unreferenced bunch of commentary, tortured anecdotes and chapters that begin with the word 'therefore'. Ayn Rand already provided the practically perfect philosophy and justification for secular ethics. Moly tried to add to perfection. He messed it up terribly with UPB. In this regard, scoll down to Paul McKeever's video commentary on how Moly screwed this up.

As to UPB specifically, here is the site for Danny's analysis of UPB:

Here is a small excerpt:

Stefan's project is an audacious undertaking. He describes his task as a battle against the "beast" of folk morality -- a view that he defines as "...the superstition that, without the tirades of parents, the bullying of gods or the guns of government, we cannot be both rational and good" (7) -- and contends that "Of course, if I have failed, I have at least failed spectacularly, which itself can be both edifying and entertaining!" (10). In this critique, it will become clear that I believe that Stefan has failed. But I am somewhat inclined to agree that his failure was rather spectacular.

No comments:

Post a Comment