Exploring the Ethics of Human Freedom Message Board Meeting Notes › Why I think Stefan Molyneux is wrong with his UPB

Why I think Stefan Molyneux is wrong with his UPB

Shawn L.
user 122519062
Newton, MA
Post #: 30
(cont'd)
C. Analysis on the Coma Test Design
So, we know that Coma Test is designed for “to do” vs. “not to do” actions to reject the to-dos, and accept "not to do". The mechanism of this test is to make not-do-do unrejectable through employing a coma person to perform a doing nothing. See Coma Test examples below:

1. Helping the poor is moral.
Result: Fail---because you cannot judge a coma person not helping the poor.
2. Helping the poor is immoral.
Result: Fail---same reason
3. Helping the orphans is moral.
Result: Fail---same reason
4. Helping the orphans is immoral.
Result: Fail---same reason
5. Murder is moral
Result: Fail---same reason
6. Murder is immoral
Result: Fail---same reason
And so on.

If you alter "to do" to "not to do", then the test will pass it.

All matters is “to do”, the word “moral” and “immoral” at the end of each moral statement do not have impact on the testing because a coma person can only perform “not to do”. So, all results are the same (fail) regardless they contradict with each other. There is no objective moral value found and used in the process.

By the same logic, if we put an insane person to do the test, since an insane may perform “to do” and “not to do”, we will be able to deny every thing.

1. Helping the poor is moral.
2. Not helping the poor is moral.
Result: Fail---because an insane person cannot be morally judged with either helping or not helping the poor.
3. Stealing is moral.
4. Stealing is immoral.
5. Not stealing is moral.
6. Not stealing is immoral.
Result: Everything fails for the same reason.

D. The Two Men in a Room Test
With the understanding of Coma Test, we can easily find out the logic behind this test: It’s a test through employing two men to act in accordance to accept/reject “to do” or “not to do” moral statement that requires two people to interact. Based on what I want to have, I can make my statement suitable for the test to have a predictable result.

For instance, if I want to prove “Not stealing is moral”, I must accept this “not to do” statement. Because for two men not to steal can happen in two men test, I can accept this statement and hence prove it true. However, if I alter this “not to do” statement to “to do” statement “Stealing is immoral”, since I cannot reach a two men stealing in the test, I’ll end up in rejecting the immoral statement, which contradicts with the first time test. To avoid it, I can modify the immoral statement to “Stealing is moral” and then reject it through the test. See the comparison below:

1. Not stealing is moral.
Result: Pass---two men can both not stealing.
2. Stealing is immoral.
Result: Rejected---two men cannot both stealing.
3. Not stealing is immoral.
Result: Pass---two men can both not stealing.
4. Stealing is moral.
Result: Rejected---two men cannot both stealing.

To summarize, under (M v N) condition, these two tests result:

1. ComaTest is a logic proof which sets N always true for "not to do" by hiring a coma person to perform the test to always pass M as "not to do", and to alway fail M as "to do".
2. Coma Test cannot pass "to do", and cannot reject "not to do".
3. Two Men Test employs two men (p1 and p1) to perform the test N as "to do" (because both p1 and p1 are normal) with following results:
a. For an argument that requires p1 and p2 both act to make N true,
a1. when M is "to do" moral statement
---it passes M when N is true (both men p1 and p2 act the same)
---it fails M when N is false (only one of the two men acts)
a2. when M is "not to do" statement
---it fails M when N is true
---it passes M when N is untrue
b. For a argument that requires p1 or p2 act to make N true,
b1. when M is "to do" statement, it does the opposite as a1.
b2. When M is "not to do statement, it does the opposite as a2.

Both Coma Test and Two Men in a Room Test are not designed with any moral values included. Logical flaws are found and lead to contradictory results. Two Men Test is a highly manipulative method, inevitably results in disputes. In comparison, Coma Test is less manipulative although inconsistent as well because a coma person can only do "not to do" and not be judged by morals.

Edited to correct summary shown in red.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy