The first time I read this book (UPB), I didn't really "get" it. I mean, I saw the logic and the proof and thought, "Hey, that's kind of neat." I was not able to access the implications that the proof of this theory would have in my life and in the greater world.

I have since re-read UPB. While I still struggle with the full range of the implications for my life, I think I get it (certainly more now than I have before).

The null zone concept is brilliant as well as fascinating! I now have the image in my mind of a "null zone" being forcibly inserted between the "little truths" and the "Great Truths", which disconnect abstraction from practice in the minds of individuals.

This alone ought to be enough to demonstrate to anybody why this is a multi-generational project. Once you've had abstractions forcibly disconnected from practice within your mind, it is a trek through the fires of ten thousand hells to reconnect them.

Also of incredible resonance to me is when Molyneux discusses the emergent properties of morality within society as opposed to the imposition of whim-based morality from a centralized authority. This is the fundamental "reversal" of intuition that either Dawkins or Dennett (I can't remember quite where I read it) has described when it comes to the science of evolution; that life, the universe, and everything do not proceed from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. Complexity and order are emergent properties of matter over time, hence it makes sense that morality and social order are emergent properties of human society over time.

Eradicating that "null zone" within my own mind and becoming ever more aware of my top-down moral standards is the horrible, horrible consequence of UPB. The upside, however, is that if, one day, I have children... I will not inflict a "null zone" upon them and will equip them to be resistant to it!

I haven't found any flaws. I think that Stefan Molyneux has done it. :)

If are familiar with philosophy literature you are undoubtedly read in moral philosophies. One of the biggest subjects in philosophy is ethics, so you can imagine that many philosophers throughout history have tried their hand at defining a rational, consistent ethical system.



While some may be content with prior attempts at doing so, Stefan Molyneux takes ethics a step further by attempting a great feat: an ethical system that is objective, rational, secular and scientific with no footnotes to religion or governments. Does that sound too good to be true? Mr. Molyneux invites you bring that skepticism with you as he meticulously explores such an ethical system.



Throughout this book, Molyneux steps you through every aspect of Universally Preferable Behavior. As with his other works, Molyneux uses very concise, clear arguments and metaphors, so that with each layer being added you understand clearly what you have read.



As you would expect, such an outrageous claim comes with many objections. Mr. Molyneux comes prepared as he sets up these objections as tests, or hurdles for UPB to cross before it can be valid. Such tests are: Rape, murder, theft, lying, and more.



Especially helpful, is the way in which Stefan organizes his arguments with some syllogism clearly written out as an aid for the reader. Also, there are several appendices and a comprehensive index at the end.



I myself have been reading philosophy for many years. I have read all the stock philosophy books on ethics. Anybody who loves philosophy knows that the purpose of philosophy is not just to have an interested discussion about it over coffee, but to LIVE that philosophy. This is especially truth with ethics. When philosophers deal with ethics they deal with one of the most powerful things on this planet. UPB is that one powerful thing that I can live since this book has set me free from false ethical systems.



Those who are new to Stefan Molyneux’s books may wish to read his first book: On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion first before embarking on this adventure. Those who have read the other book and understood will be delighted.



In summary, Molyneux talks about the beast that he is hoping to defeat in this book. To quote:



“The beast has never been defeated because the beast is an illusion.



“The beast cannot be defeated in the world, because he beast is within ourselves.



“However, if we can sustain our courage, it is this discipline alone that can set us, and our children – and all humanity in the future – free from tyranny of the greatest beast: our own moral illusions.”



I think it is true that Stefan Molyneux has done such a great task. As stated in the beginning, one should absolutely bring their skepticism with them. It may seem like there's this big iron curtain in front of you which Stefan cannot movie, but step by step Stefan Molyneux opens that curtain for you to reveal something truly amazing. If you wish to understand the quote above and learn more about how this applies to your life, you should check out Molyneux’s first book On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion for more details.

I’ve been busy reading up on the arguments for/against government since for about 3-4 months. I picked up a book (Universally Preferable Behavior) by Stefan Molyneux that I think solidifies the argument against the need for the state and has a much more solid argument for man-based ethics than I have read before. Since this is a relatively new subject to me (compared to Objectivism) I’m going to take my time before I lay out my argument here. For now, if you are interested reading about this new argument for objective, rational, man-based ethics (that I think is more cohesive and logical than Objectivism) pick up this book. Here’s an introduction by the author himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8nB2FjS8AQ

Mr. Molyneux has a good background in philosophy and is an admirer of Ayn Rand. He found some flaws in her works that he thought needed to be corrected, and so far I agree with his arguments. My admiration for him started when I began watching his Youtube videos about a year ago. Since then he (and many others like him) have convinced me that state only hinders individual freedom, no matter what way you pitch it.

I am now on my second time reading this book, and can't find any logical inconsistencies anywhere. I never thought I'd say it, but I am convinced that men do not need governments to rule them. In fact, I think it is morally wrong that the state exists. "But what about the roads!?", you ask? Visit freedomainradio.com to find every answer you need. It will make that much more sense after you have come to the conclusion that the state is morally wrong.

Never before has such a logically consistent and empirically verifiable ethical theory been put forth. This book undertakes the task of applying the basic procedure of the scientific method to the question of ethics and the results are astounding and almost entirely indisputable. I'm not exaggerating at all when I say that this is one of the most important books ever written, and I can only hope for humanity that it reaches a good number of people someday.

It's late November, 2007. I've been wanting to write a review on Stefan Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics for several weeks, but I've been stuck. How do I write a review -- pass judgment -- on something which will have a larger impact on the world than all of my words and deeds combined? The only thing I can do to make myself comfortable with the concept is to write this not as a review, but as a letter to the inhabitants of the future. Perhaps from your perspective, my praise won't sound as hyperbolic as it does to my ears in the present.

You already know the content of the book. You don't need me to summarize it for you, as its substance has been mixed with the concrete which forms the solid foundations of your society. Instead, I'll tell you about my experience of the book in my own time.

I envy you, inhabitant of the future. You've grown up in a world guided by consistent principles and sound moral philosophy. The gods and governments which inhabit my world have passed into the history books, where they can cause you no real harm.

Your parents did not force you to attend a church, and so you did not learn to distrust your senses. You were not educated by the state, and so your mind was not systematically demolished. You were not fed with a diet of false knowledge and twisted, corrupt morality, to be later exploited in your resulting weakness. I imagine your world, and I weep with joy. And with sadness, knowing that I won't experience it myself.

You may wonder if contemporaries of Mr. Molyneux knew what it was that they held when they read their first-edition copies of UPB. I'm not sure I can. I was amazed at his insight and entertained by his wit. I laughed as I read it. I laughed in amusement. I laughed in exultation. I laughed in defiance of the addled past and its sophist masters. And when I had finished reading it, the echoes of my laughter subsiding, I found that I was numb.

Universally Preferable Behavior had taken away my last excuse for failure to live and act with integrity. I could no longer fall back on the story that I didn't know right from wrong. That I wasn't given the proper instruction by those who claimed the right to teach me. It's not a weight I was expecting to carry just yet -- if ever.

I've been following along with Mr. Molyneux in his early years as a philosopher. I've had the pleasure of learning from him, speaking with him, and (perhaps most satisfyingly) supporting him in his work. The quality of my life has increased in ways I could never have imagined before this experience. I'm intellectually and emotionally stronger than I've ever been since my earliest days as an unspoiled child. And yet, I'm utterly humbled by the thought of applying the framework of UPB to my life.

But you are reading this, and the fact that you are must mean that people of my generation have proven capable of hefting this weight. We must have braced against each other when the load was too great to carry individually. We must have stopped to pick each other up when we fell toward our old habits of false morality. We must have spurred each other on with optimistic musings about the world in which you live. We must have loved that world enough to carry this responsibility forward to the next generation, so that they could add their strength to ours. And we must have known, somewhere deep within us, what it was that we were holding when we first read that book.

I hope that you love and cherish your world as much as I do.

Moral philosophers consider the question "Why Be Good?" to be one of the central problems of ethics. Stefan Molyneux himself has expressed this tangentially as one motivation for writing the UPB book.

But, it has occurred to me recently, that this is the wrong question - and I think it may be this fundamental difference between UPB and other moral arguments that makes Universally Preferable Behavior superior to them. UPB does not attempt to answer this question. It simply acknowledges that we all, as a matter of observable fact, want to "be good". That is UPB's basic axiom.

Some will contest that all mister Molyneux has done is to simply refuse to answer the question. But, I would argue that no one really wants or needs an answer to that question. Even in the most backwater, barbaric, nomadic cultures you can think of, the people in those cultures believed that what they were doing was *good. They desired to be good. Even if that meant lopping 500 heads to appease a sun god, or burning infidels at the stake, or torturing pagans on the rack. But the truth is, as this book shows, that they were all corrupted into believing that what they were doing was the good. But they needed little if no explanation at all, for why they wanted to do what was good. They just did it.

So, the REAL problem is not "why should I be good?", but rather, "Why should I believe your definition of the good?" - And THAT is the problem UPB solves.

It is the only problem that really needed to be solved, at a fundamental level. Right action is what we've always desired, as a species. But knowledge of right action has been so obscured for centuries that acting coherently on our desire to do good has been next to impossible. UPB does not - and cannot - give you the desire to act on the good, but it can - and does - give you a means to discover what it is.

THAT is why this stuff is so scary to people. THAT is why UPB is such a "dangerous" idea: It tells us all that we've lived a lie for eons, in order to dull the unsatisfied pang of that desire to do good - and that, all this time we believed we were doing good, we were in fact, doing the opposite.

THAT is why violence escalates, and evil accumulates. The unsatisfied desire keeps building and building, and our appetite keeps expanding, in an attempt to satisfy the desire. But, because we think the opposite of good is actual good, we only exacerbate the pangs; enhance the desire; excellerate the craving to satisfy that desire.

THAT is why violence-centered societies must ALWAYS fail - and precisely why governments must ALWAYS collapse, in the end.

This book will turn your thinking inside out. This book is more than just brilliant, for it will stand the test of time for countless centuries to come and will ignite a fuse, for humanity, that has been waiting to be lit for tens of thousands of years.