I will finish my close reading of Stef's 'On Truth', but I was wondering whether anybody would be interested in reading and discussing Stef's UPB book together. Discussion through posts or through Skype. I find the topic very interesting (esp. re Hoppe's Argu7mentation Ethics argument) and wonder how Stef approached it and how well he has done.

I know some of you have the book, as do I, so eh, we can do this thang!

I'll try getting my hands on a Mic but until then I'll participate in chatrooms if I can. I skimmed over the book and nothing really grabbed me yet, I'm wondering if its worth the effort. Have you come across some things worth talking about?

I think there are some problems with the proof of UPB. For example in the ground rules on p. 12, Stef says we can't dirctly derive moral rules from reality, like people's general preference to live. Then in the animal rights section on p. 154, we have "the logical problem of inevitable evil." Now stuff's that's necessary to live can't be immoral.

I think the stuff about murder (p. 121) has the same flaw. He says things like: It's impossible for two people to both murder each other, the murderer is evil for failing to murder while he's in the process of attacking, people in comas can't murder, etc. What if I defined a "murder is good" rule more clearly to avoid these contradictions. Like, "It is universally preferable for anyone who's able to attempt to murder everyone they see." Can you refute this using pure logic, and not using the assumption that life's better than death?

What about his statement "Murder cannot be morally neutral since morally neutral judgements or actions cannot be forcibly inflicted upon another." The obvious retort to that is, "It can be forcibly inflicted it because it's morally neutral!" The first statement is basically, "murder can't be neutral because I define it as wrong."
What if he'd said, "Saying 'sup' to people cannot be morally neutral, since morally neutral judgements or actions cannot be forcibly inflicted."

The childraising section on p. 147 is also heavy on appeals to social norms and light on logical proof.

I don't dispute the main ideas like self-ownership and non-aggression. But I don't think this book is a very good proof.

of course he says stealing and murder can't be moral because then not doing it would be immoral. We would have to do it all the time to be moral. So what? A person in a coma isn't moral just neutral as would we be when we don't steal or sit and watch tv.
He uses the logic of the excluded middle and then talks about the middle or neutral ground. With logic you can talk about moral or immoral but not both unless you have 2 sets of logical statements. Either something can be moral or neutral; or it can be immoral or neutral. You cannot say not moral therefore immoral or not immoral therefore moral if you allow for neutrality.
I have no desire to read his book by the way.

do you think it would be a copyright violation if I copy-pasted the last page and a quarter from Stef's book? it's his point-by-point summary of the UPB argument. about 12 sentences.

It is not forbidden to use small quotes in a critical essay or analysis.

You may want to add some commentary of your own to cement the issue.

- NonE

What I have been trying to dig out of the whole book, and On Truth too, is a syllogism. I want a proof. He says it's in there. The above comes the closest, but falls short in that the steps do not follow, for instance, where does 6 follow from 5? 7 is flatly untrue, as anyone who has ever watched a Presidential debate can attest and we all know what the term "sophistry" means, right? Where does 9 come from? And how does he arrive at 12? Is it not possible that a completely randomly generated or wildly superstitious set of moral theories could conform to UPB yet have no logical basis or empirical evidence? The first part is fine, but it's the "All other moral theories are false" bit that snags that one. He's taken the logic of Hoppe's "performative contradiction" stuff and turned it inside out here.

No wonder the Freedomainers greeted this book with a deafening silence. It's a big "huh?" from me too. My legs have gone numb on the toilet many a morning as I tried to sort this thing out. I'm starting again, again. I'll see what I get and post it here.

On the other hand, the On Truth book has really helped a friend of mine deal with her drug addicted mother's antics. If your parents really are fucked up and abusive, Stef's deconstructing the family and/or deFOO stuff really works, it's when they're decent, kind and loving yet normally flawed human beings, his hostility is misplaced.

This weekend, I drive out to visit my mother (who I love and respect very much). We had a 2 hour philisophical argument the other day that was sparked by her support for passing a law putting breathalyzer interlock devices in every car (it would save lives ). I realized that I have failed to communicate some very basic and fundamental things about what I believe to her. It engendered some hurt feelings and unpleasant exchanges, but we are going to try and work it out over turkey dinner tomorrow. Wish me luck!

1. Reality is objective and consistent.
Axiom which must be accepted or not.
2. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules
derived from the consistency of reality.
Like you said it is not the set but A set.

3. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”
4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing
are called “accurate.”
5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are
called “true.”
So Newtons laws were true until Einstein?
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.
Absolutely objective or flexibly objective?
8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of
universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical
consistency and empirical verification.
10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour
is called “morality.”
What is enforceable behavior? I can tell you what to do?
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.
Is a theory about how you killed my daughter both moral as its enforceable and true because I don't have evidence to prove any circumstantial evidence is wrong. Truth seems to exist where absence of contrary evidence is missing. If I walk in a room and you are holding a smoking gun and my daughter is dead, I can condemn you despite you shooting at the man who jumped out the window without leaving evidence. That is not truth. That is best guess.