The Promise and Failure of UPB--the Inside Story

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Last paragraph, you write:

"In the book, he failed to identify why anyone would want to moral."

I assume you meant this:

"In the book, he failed to identify why anyone would want to be moral."

Otherwise, bang up job. Another one right out of the park!

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

QuestEon · Number of posts: 552 Registration date: 2008-03-25

Dylboz wrote:

Last paragraph, you write:

"In the book, he failed to identify why anyone would want to moral."

I assume you meant this:

"In the book, he failed to identify why anyone would want to be moral."

Otherwise, bang up job. Another one right out of the park!

Fixed! Thank you!

_________________
-Q.E.

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

QuestEon - Inspired as always! Thank you so much! I am also enjoying reading the "How!?!" thread that Dyl just started. Fun to hear what goes on during the writing process (and during Karen's as well).

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

Wow "QT" you have been busy. Nicely done.
The chat logs you posted bring back a few memories.
He was quite a catty bugger.

FDR being the stage; those are the words of an actor.

As an aside... does anyone love Nature Valley Sweet n Salty Nut Almond Granola bars as much as I do?

LaughingMan0X · Number of posts: 2 Registration date: 2009-08-09

Great Compilation you've got here ^^

QuestEon · Number of posts: 552 Registration date: 2008-03-25

Thank you very much! I thought your insights on UPB were excellent and I was very happy to find them. There is currently a very amusing thread on freedomain with a haphazard attempt to discount your thesis. (Don't click on the link directly--Molyneux may block your IP if you link to FDR from here. Copy the link in a new browser window and open it):

http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/t/21682.aspx

_________________
-Q.E.

LaughingMan0X · Number of posts: 2 Registration date: 2009-08-09

Yea, I saw that forum as well; alot of psychologizing, very little substance addressing what I actually said; and a few amusing parts.

The guy claiming that "truth is universally preferable to falsehood"[just because it is] is an axiom, I seriously had a laugh at that.

Hmmm, I wonder how they explain a whole class of politicians and con-men who making their living quite happily on distorting the truth. *wink, wink* Universally preferable my ass XD

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Welcome to limi. It is great to see you here after watching your work such a highly discussed topic on FDR.....quite a few amusing comments there, agreed.

What drew you to come to limi? I look forward to hearing more of your views.

flower

Conrad

QuestEon wrote:

Thank you very much! I thought your insights on UPB were excellent and I was very happy to find them. There is currently a very amusing thread on freedomain with a haphazard attempt to discount your thesis. (Don't click on the link directly--Molyneux may block your IP if you link to FDR from here. Copy the link in a new browser window and open it):

http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/t/21682.aspx

btw QuestEon, I think I remember in your post on UPB that at the end you say that all Stefan has proven is that some things are bad to do. But I would say he hasn't even proven that. All he has proven is that some theories that say that certain actions* are always good are incompatible with the criteria he (Stefan) specifies. That's all. And it amounts to pretty much nothing as anybody could come up with a result like that. The tough part is specifying why the criteria are the most plausible or only possible ones for ethical evaluations; why one should act according to them; and how the results do justice to our moral intuitions. He hasn't come close to doing any of that.

* and for things like theft, plausibly rape and murder he hasn't even proved that theories that say that those actions are good fail his own criteria, since it seems practically possible for everybody to perform those actions at the same time (which in itself is a ridiculous criterion (at least to some extent (not to the extent that the good has to be possible though)))

_________________
My Blog

QuestEon · Number of posts: 552 Registration date: 2008-03-25

LaughingMan0X wrote:

Yea, I saw that forum as well; alot of psychologizing, very little substance addressing what I actually said; and a few amusing parts.

Well, you are the first philosopher I know whose work has been invalidated by the "fallacy of expressing ideas in ALL CAPS" principle. Good show!

_________________
-Q.E.

QuestEon · Number of posts: 552 Registration date: 2008-03-25

Conrad wrote:

QuestEon wrote:

Thank you very much! I thought your insights on UPB were excellent and I was very happy to find them. There is currently a very amusing thread on freedomain with a haphazard attempt to discount your thesis. (Don't click on the link directly--Molyneux may block your IP if you link to FDR from here. Copy the link in a new browser window and open it):

http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/t/21682.aspx

btw QuestEon, I think I remember in your post on UPB that at the end you say that all Stefan has proven is that some things are bad to do. But I would say he hasn't even proven that.

You're absolutely, 100% right. I got lazy on my language in that sentence because I was making a weak joke. At that point (Part 5) in my history, it was clear that UPB was a million miles away from what I had shown Molyneux claiming for it in Part 1. In the end, he has come up with something that can only do a fair job of demonstrating that the three human acts that virtually everyone intuitively realizes are the most heinous are logically inconsistent.

D4Shawn sent me an e-mail a few days ago challenging even the idea that UPB is a successful way to invalidate inconsistent ethical propositions. I agree with him. Although I never asked them, I seriously think BrainPolice, LaughingMan0X, et. al., were simply throwing Molyneux a bone on that count, because they destroyed everything else and felt like they had to say something nice in the interest of fairness. Very Happy

I suggested in Part 3 that--as an ethics calculator, UPB is badly short circuited, I didn't push the point too hard after that.

Actually, the best UPB critique ever written was by Stewart:

Stewart wrote:

He thinks ethics are just a bunch of rules that philosophers are trying to ferret out of the ether. He really has no idea what he's talking about. His life now is speaking nonsense to misguided sycophants who don't know any better.

I wish I had simply posted that on my site and saved myself about 12,000 words.

_________________
-Q.E.

Conrad

QuestEon wrote:

Conrad wrote:

QuestEon wrote:

Thank you very much! I thought your insights on UPB were excellent and I was very happy to find them. There is currently a very amusing thread on freedomain with a haphazard attempt to discount your thesis. (Don't click on the link directly--Molyneux may block your IP if you link to FDR from here. Copy the link in a new browser window and open it):

http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/t/21682.aspx

btw QuestEon, I think I remember in your post on UPB that at the end you say that all Stefan has proven is that some things are bad to do. But I would say he hasn't even proven that.

You're absolutely, 100% right. I got lazy on my language in that sentence because I was making a weak joke. At that point (Part 5) in my history, it was clear that UPB was a million miles away from what I had shown Molyneux claiming for it in Part 1. In the end, he has come up with something that can only do a fair job of demonstrating that the three human acts that virtually everyone intuitively realizes are the most heinous are logically inconsistent.

it's not logical inconsistency though. it's non-universalizability. But the criterion of universalizability first has to be established itself. Moreover, even the demonstration of non-universalizability of theft, murder and rape fails in my opinion since technically it is practically possible for everybody to do those at the same time (exceedingly difficult and astronomically unlikely, but possible)

Quote:

Actually, the best UPB critique ever written was by Stewart:

Stewart wrote:

He thinks ethics are just a bunch of rules that philosophers are trying to ferret out of the ether. He really has no idea what he's talking about. His life now is speaking nonsense to misguided sycophants who don't know any better.

I wish I had simply posted that on my site and saved myself about 12,000 words.

I don't quite understand that quote. You (and Stewart) mean that Stefan's ethical reasoning really has nothing to do with ethics? In the sense that when we reason about ethics we don't use such abstract criteria, but things like sympathy, fairness, context, etc.?

_________________
My Blog

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Conrad wrote:

...it's not logical inconsistency though. it's non-universalizability.

Formal complaint.

Board Op, please take the appropriate actions regarding the usage of non-standard werd by the above poster. I looked up this word for correctitudiousnous and found it lacking.

Reference: http://www.nonedictioncontraryist.argh/

I expect you to deal with this infraction 4thwith.

- NonE

Conrad

oh man, if only you understood grammar, then you'd be able to find out the meanings of some words you don't know yet on the basis of words you do know plus some simple grammatical rules.

_________________
My Blog

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

But I din't get know college edjewcation.

- NonE