"I told me!"

I enjoyed watching Short Circuit this weekend. I particularly liked that the robot was against using violence. It reinforced a lot of what I believe when it comes to morality: that we understand it instinctually.

Of course I know it's wrong to kill, but who told you?

I told me!

I don't care if everyone else is doing it. I don't care if it isn't practical to put away violent threats. I don't care how many arguments can be made in favor of God and country. If the premises of your arguments lead to the logical conclusion that violence used in anything but self-defense is justifiable, then you have gone against objective morality.

How is morality objective? This logical argument was culled from the pages of Stefan Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics":

1. Reality is objective and consistent.
2. "Logic" is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
3. Those theories that conform to logic are called "valid."
4. Those theories that are confirmed by empircal testing are called "accurate."
5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called "true."
6. "Preferences" are required for life, thought, language and debating.
7. Debating requires that both parties hold "truth" to be both objective and universally preferable.
8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behavior (UPB).
9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empircal verification.
10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behavior is called "morality."
11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

Hard to follow? Let me demonstrate. Let's say that we wish to prove that violence (i.e. coercion/murder) is morally justifiable.

If violence is moral, then acting violently must be the only way to behave morally. The opposite of violence is non-violence. Acting non-violently means you are not actively committing violence, meaning you are not behaving morally, meaning non-violence is either immoral or amoral. The only way to be logically and consistently moral when we say that "violence is moral" is to always be commiting an act of violence. If you're asleep or in a coma, then you are acting immorally. If you're sitting peacefully at home, then you are acting immorally.

Does this make sense? It seems very illogical and difficult to support.

When people condone the functions of a State, they are consenting to the idea that "violence is moral," since the only power a government possesses is its ability to initiate violence with impunity.

If the premise of "violence is moral" is illogical when put to the test, then why are people so ga-ga for guns and governments? Good question. Perhaps they will say that there is no such thing a morality, or that it is all a matter of opinion and gray areas. Oh? If everything is a matter of opinion, why are they trying to convince you that there is truth to what they are saying? Whose opinion takes precedence when it comes to deciding who will be killed and for what purposes? Hmmm...

A nihilist will vehemently shout that there is no truth. If there is no truth, why say it is true that there is no truth? It's illogical!

If violence is a morally neutral action, then why bother regulating it with laws at all?

Suppose we propose that "violence is immoral." To be logically and consistently moral in this case requires only that you refrain from harming others. Everyone can behave morally at all times in this case, including persons asleep and in comas. Engaging someone in a debate by saying that "violence is immoral" does not require you to invoke moral gray areas or to deny the existence of objective morality. Why is that? Perhaps because you have no crimes to hide.

So I venture that violence is immoral. If you'd like a more detailed proof or have any questions, please ask me. Otherwise, test my premises for yourself.

If violence is immoral, government is immoral. QED bitches. Tough titties for all of you social planners out there.

How do I know killing is wrong? I told me!