The Simple Truth That Would Smash Our Immoral System (A Video Everyone Should See)

No matter where you are as you watch this video, no matter what you’re watching it on – a computer screen, a portable device or you’re screen casting it to your TV, there’s one obvious thing everybody who’s watching has in common.  You’re a human being and you have preferences that differ from your other fellow human beings.  And these preferences extend to many different spheres in our lives.

But there are universal preferences every one of us has in common.  For example, not one of you watching this video wants to be lied to.  You want people to tell you the truth.  Not one of you wants your house broken into while you’re sleeping tonight.  You want to feel secure and rest easy.  You don’t want to be robbed at gun point and have your life threatened.  You won’t even find one person who wants others to communicate with them in unintelligible gibberish.  People want clear language that can be easily understood.  If I created a video speaking gibberish, you wouldn’t give it 5 seconds of your time.  And I would expect that the next 5 seconds would see you throwing me a dislike and unsubscribing from the channel.  And this would be expected.  Why?  Because nobody wants to waste their time listening to what they perceive as nonsense.

You MUST watch this incredibly enlightening video!

These are all examples of Universally Preferable Behaviors.

    Morality can be defined as Universally Preferable Behavior (i.e. a moral theory is that which proposes which behaviors should be preferred – or prescribed – behaviors which do no harm and even benefit all peoples in all places at all times.)

    For a proposition to be defined as moral, it must advocate a logically consistent set of Universally Preferable Behaviors, such as “don’t steal people’s stuff”

    Anyone who argues against Universally Preferable Behavior must do so using clear language, arguments, logic and evidence – all based on the principle that truth is better than falsehood.

    Clear language, argument, logic and evidence – and a universal preference for truth over falsehood – are all examples of Universally Preferred Behavior. Therefore a man can only argue against Universally Preferable Behavior by using Universally Preferable Behavior, since anyone who argues is acting on the premise that clear language is universally preferred to gibberish, logic to illogic, and truth to falsehood.

    Since Universally Preferable Behavior cannot be opposed without accepting the premise and reality of Universally Preferred Behavior, Universally Preferred Behavior must stand as a valid concept.

The argument follows the same general lines as arguments for logic itself. Logic as a methodology for validating the consistency of arguments is irrefutable, since logic can only be dismissed either on a whim, which is invalid, or using logic, which relies on the validity of logic in the first place.

Arguing against Universally Preferable Behavior is like shouting into somebody’s ear that sound does not exist, or calling someone on the phone to tell him that phones are a fantasy. The argument self-destructs on deployment.  

Having said that, here’s a simple question for you: Is it morally wrong to break the law?

That simple question is a useful litmus test to see if someone is still suffering from authoritarian indoctrination. If someone immediately answers “yes,” without bothering to ask WHICH “law” you mean–which is the response that the average person will give–then that person is still thoroughly steeped in statist mythology.  (and by statist I mean those who believe that it’s entirely legitimate for a person or a group of people to believe they have the RIGHT to rule others.)  And let’s face it, that’s how those in authority act.  They act like they have a higher claim over your life and property than you do.  Consider a simple police encounter.  Even though a police officer is no different than you, he believes he has the right interrupt your day, pull you over, search your vehicle and generally treat you the way he would never want someone else to treat him.  Now if you tried to do the exact same thing the officer did, somebody would call the cops and you would be arrested. But the religious belief in a supposed authority paralyzes people and keeps them at bay.  There is an irrefutable inconsistency here, which strips the officer’s action of any legitimacy and therefore lays bare the mythology of authority.  

The correct answer to the question “is it morally wrong to break the law” is that sometimes it is good to disobey the “law,” and sometimes it is bad to go “against the law” (such as committing murder), but the existence of “legislation” is never WHY it is bad.  Murdering, raping and stealing are all obviously unacceptable behaviors.  Behaviors that not one person watching this video would want done to them.  Having a law against immorality is NOT what makes it wrong to do.  Doing something immoral makes it wrong whether there’s a law against it or not.

Saying it’s bad to break the law is like saying it’s bad to do something on a Saturday while wearing…I don’t know…say a McDeath’s “eat fast, die young” shirt. Whether you did something on Saturday while wearing this shirt, or whether you had the holy written permission of the ruling class to do something, is 100% irrelevant to whether the action was moral or not. Politicians scribbling crap on fancy pieces of paper and performing pseudo-religious rituals, called legislative actions (which is essentially what a “law” is) cannot make something bad into something good, or something good into something bad. When people understand that simple truth, that is the end of ruling classes and the very beginning of individual freedom.