UPB - show me the error of my understanding

Number of posts: 640 Location: NOLA Registration date: 2007-10-24

Yes you have to know what the objective standard is. I believe there isn't one.
Yet if one could be found, which I do not believe, you might feel differently about X. Y, and Z.
Thus if Stefs theory doesn't say that there is one objective standard then it should be forgotten. If it does lead to a way to determine this objective standard then it still needs to show how belief about X, Y, and Z will matter.
One step at a time though. This is Blackacidlizzards thread so I am going by his problems.

blackacidlizzard wrote:

Conrad wrote:

the question is how the UPB-test is used to make these points. if they are not made through UPB then my arguments still stand as arguments against the validity of the UPB test. If they are made through UPB then I kind of fail to see how this is being done. it seems that you are using auxiliary arguments here.

I don't think I am just being slippery as an eel here, though I might be. lemme know

No, I don't think so... I think I have integrated what I find easiest to use from UPB into my general framework... I'm not quite sure I know what comes from UPB and what doesn't, though I think there are some things not explicitly spelled out in UPB which are easily formed from it (by itself?.... good question....)

I will attempt to address the bullet points you put up earlier, it will be a few days most likely...

okay, perhaps it will be helpful re the discussion about UPB if you can describe in like 5 sentences what you take the UPB theory to be in its core. I know that's a tough thing to do as the book is over about 200 pages (I think). ehm, Stef has repeatedly referred to his LRC article on UPB as a summary of the theory.

Quote:

We must take the same approach with defining and communicating morality. We must begin using the power and legitimacy of the scientific method to prove the existence and universality of moral laws. We must start from the beginning, build logically and reject any irrational or non-empirical substitutes for the truth.
What does this look like in practice? All we have to do is establish the following axioms:

Morality exists.
Moral rules must be consistent for all mankind.
The more consistent a moral theory is, the more valid it is.
Libertarianism is the most consistent moral theory.
Therefore, libertarianism is the most valid moral theory!

Sound like a tall order? But give me three thousand or so words, and we can at least take a swing at the first three.

[...]

Syllogistically, this is:

The proposition is: preferred behaviour must exist.
Anyone who argues against the existence of preferred behaviour is demonstrating preferred behaviour.
Therefore no argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be valid.

How else do we know that moral rules exist? Well, all matter is subject to physical rules – and everything that is organic is in addition subject to certain requirements, and so, if it is alive, has followed preferred behaviours. Everything that lives, for instance, needs fuel and oxygen in order to stay alive – even plants strain for sunlight. Any living mind, of course, is an organic part of the physical world, and so must be subject to both physical laws and has followed preferred behaviours – to argue otherwise would require proof that consciousness is not composed of matter, and is not organic – an impossibility, since it has mass, energy, and life. Arguing that consciousness is subjected to neither physical rules or preferential choices would be like arguing that human beings are not subject to gravity and can flourish without eating. Thus it is impossible that anyone can argue against preferred behaviour, since if he is alive to argue, he has followed preferred behaviours such as breathing, eating and drinking.
Or:

All living organisms require preferred behaviour to live.
Man is a living organism.
Therefore all living men are alive due to the existence and practice of preferred behaviour.
Therefore any argument against preferred behaviour requires the existence of preferred behaviour.
Therefore no argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be valid.

Since the scientific method requires empirical corroboration, we must also look to reality to confirm our hypothesis – and here the existence of preferred behaviours is fully supported. Almost every human being believes in moral rules of some kind. There is much disagreement about what constitutes moral rules, but everyone is certain that moral rules are valid – just as scientific theories disagree, but all scientists accept the validity of the scientific method itself. Disproving something that everyone believes in is almost impossible. One can argue that the Earth is round and not flat – which is analogous to changing the definition of morality – but one cannot argue that the earth does not exist at all – which is like arguing that there is no such thing as preferred behaviour.
Or:

For a scientific theory to be valid, it must be supported through empirical observation.
If preferred behaviour exists, then mankind should believe in preferred behaviour.
Almost all men believe in preferred behaviour.
Therefore empirical evidence exists to support the existence of preferred behaviour – and the existence of such evidence opposes the proposition that preferred behaviour does not exist.

The fourth argument for the existence of preferred behaviour is also empirical. Since human beings have an almost-infinite number of choices to make in life, to say that there are no principles of preferred behaviour would be to say that all choices are equal. However, all choices are not equal, either logically or through empirical observation. To take one example, if food is available, almost all human beings eat every day. If not themselves subjected to violence, human beings are generally not violent. Almost all parents choose to feed and shelter their children. There are many examples of common choices among humankind, which indicate that preferential behaviour abounds and is part of human nature – and requires that any theory claiming otherwise must explain away this teeming evidence.
Or:

Choices are almost infinite.
Most human beings make very similar choices.
Therefore not all choices can be equal.
Therefore preferred choices must exist.

The fifth argument for the existence of preferred behaviour is biological. Since all organic life requires preferential behaviour, we can assume that those organisms which make the most successful choices are the ones most often selected for survival. Since man is the most successful species, and man’s most distinctive organ is his mind, it must be man’s mind that has aided the most in making successful choices. The mind itself, then, has been selected as successful by its very ability to make successful choices. Since the human mind only exists as a result of choosing preferred behaviour, preferred behaviours must exist.
Or:

Organisms succeed by acting upon preferred behaviour.
Man is the most successful organism.
Therefore man must have acted most successfully on the basis of preferred behaviour.
Man’s mind is his most distinctive organ.
Therefore man’s mind must have acted most successfully on the basis of preferred behaviour.
Therefore preferred behaviour must exist.

and this is the summary Stef provides at the end of the book:

Quote:

[size=12]
Below, please find a summation of the core argument for morality.
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 empirical 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 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.”
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.

[/size]

Last edited by Conrad on Sat May 24, 2008 5:14 pm; edited 1 time in total

the latter summary is UPB in its most general form, the former ones flesh out the steps taken re the morality question and the existence of prefered behavior.

here a fragment from the book. I find the reasoning highly irrelevant. rape is not 'not good' because it is logically impossible for two people to rape each other and be virtuous at the same time. When we describe and explain the badness of rape we never ever resort to reasoning like that, instead we talk about its being bad because it is a violation of rights, or because a virtuous person would not rape, or because it leads to a loss in happiness or simply because it is bad (thereby expressing the sort of transcendent nature of its badness: no reasons are even required). We don't call it 'not good' because of the logical impossiblity that Stef describes.

this also means that if Stef wants to use empirical evidence he should take into account that there is no empirical evidence in the world for people finding rape bad because of the argument he gives. If he wants to use the fact that people tend to find rape bad as empirical evidence then why would he not also consider the reasons that people give as empirical evidence

Quote:

[size=12]
To take an absurd example, let’s imagine that we are reviewing an ethical theory that proclaims that
rape is a moral good.
Clearly, if I proclaim that “X” is “the good,” then the opposite of “X” must be evil. If not raping is good,
then raping must be evil. Conversely, if raping is good, then not raping must be evil.
Raping someone is a positive action that must be initiated, executed, and then completed. If “rape” is a
moral good, then “not raping” must be a moral evil – thus it is impossible for two men in a single room to

both be moral at the same time, since only one of them can be a rapist at any given moment – and he can
only be a rapist if the other man becomes his victim.
That which enables virtue cannot be evil. “Freedom,” for instance, is a prerequisite for virtue – without
freedom, we cannot be virtuous – thus “freedom” cannot be evil, since it is required for goodness.
If it is morally good to be a rapist, and one can only be a rapist by sexually assaulting a victim, then
clearly the victim must be morally good by resisting the sexual assault – since if he does not resist, it is
by definition not rape, and therefore not virtuous. In other words, attacking virtue by definition enables

virtue. Thus we have an insurmountable paradox, in which the victim must attack virtue in order to
enable virtue – he must resist sexual assault in order to enable the “virtue” of the rapist. Thus not only
can the rape victim not be virtuous, but he must resist and attack “virtue” in order to allow it.

Insurmountable logical problems thus result from the proposition: “rape is moral.”

[/size]

okay, forget the two posts just before the post about rape. the 'rape-post' gets more to the point and is a lot shorter

Number of posts: 1202 Location: Boston, MA Registration date: 2008-04-02

I had forgotten about this part, but you re-posted it, Conrad:

UPB wrote:

All we have to do is establish the following axioms:

Morality exists.
Moral rules must be consistent for all mankind.
The more consistent a moral theory is, the more valid it is.
Libertarianism is the most consistent moral theory.
Therefore, libertarianism is the most valid moral theory!

Did anyone else find it hilarious that Stefan asserted this list as axioms?

Number of posts: 434 Location: Red Deer, Alberta Registration date: 2007-10-16

hehe
woman after rape: "well, THAT was illogical!"

_________________

http://tails-dx.deviantart.com/gallery/
My daughters art. =3

Number of posts: 640 Location: NOLA Registration date: 2007-10-24

I found this even more hilrious. I guess we can also say we have empiricle evidence for god and witchs too.

For a scientific theory to be valid, it must be supported through empirical observation.

If preferred behaviour exists, then mankind should believe in preferred behaviour.

Almost all men believe in preferred behaviour.

Therefore empirical evidence exists to support the existence of preferred behaviour – and the existence of such evidence opposes the proposition that preferred behaviour does not exist.

Number of posts: 1202 Location: Boston, MA Registration date: 2008-04-02

Conrad wrote:

I find the reasoning highly irrelevant. rape is not 'not good' because it is logically impossible for two people to rape each other and be virtuous at the same time. When we describe and explain the badness of rape we never ever resort to reasoning like that, instead we talk about its being bad because it is a violation of rights, or because a virtuous person would not rape, or because it leads to a loss in happiness or simply because it is bad (thereby expressing the sort of transcendent nature of its badness: no reasons are even required). We don't call it 'not good' because of the logical impossiblity that Stef describes.

This is a really great analysis. It's the kind of thinking that, I suspect, fans of UPB simply don't engage in. Stefan, like so many objectivists before him, goes into Everything-Must-Be-Rational-Rational-Rational mode, as he worships at the altar of "logic" and "science". Then he tries to bring morality into the picture, but it never occurs to him that when people get upset about things like rape, theft, murder, their reasons have very little to do with logic.

Number of posts: 979 Registration date: 2007-12-29

Lizzard, if the universality requirement in Stefan's theory operated the way that you seem to suggest that it does, then what Stefan would be arguing is this:

In order for any inflicted behavior to be morally permissible, it would need to be morally obligatory for all people to be performing it at all times, regardless of the circumstances.

That seems to be a ridiculous standard for evaluating the legitimacy of any action, and I would have no problem dismissing it out of hand as being completely baseless. It would, in effect, ban all inflicted behaviors. And while that may be Stefan's goal, it's clear that the ban on inflicted behaviors would be nothing more than an artifact of that ridiculous requirement. So hopefully, Stefan doesn't take the universality requirement to mean what you suggested. That's not to say that all inflicted behaviors shouldn't be banned, but this explanation of why they should be banned seems unreasonable and utterly unfounded.

------------------

The idea that status can't play any role in moral theories is ludicrous. There's a difference between class and status, in that class implies inequality between people and status does not. If I am a Zen master, then I may surely hit my students (it's part of some Zen training programs), though I would not be justified in doing the same to people who weren't my students, and my students would not be justified in hitting me.

But it occurs to me that such behaviors are not "inflicted" in the sense that others need to volunteer themselves in some sense. In the same way, to kill other soldiers on the basis of their being soldiers would not really qualify as an inflicted behavior, because the victims would have had to declare themselves to be combatants (like my Zen students declare themselves to be my students, and accept what that entails). Accordingly the soldier's actions could not be evaluated with ethical rules, so long as she only killed other soldiers, who in declaring themselves to be soldiers took on the risk of being killed by other soldiers at the same time that they agreed that they would kill other soldiers if they could. Declaring oneself to be a combatant is completely avoidable, and if the only people that combatants were allowed to kill were other combatants, then their choice to do so would fall under aesthetics. That seems to be perfectly within Stefan's theory.

Danny wrote:

Lizzard, if the universality requirement in Stefan's theory operated the way that you seem to suggest that it does, then what Stefan would be arguing is this:

In order for any inflicted behavior to be morally permissible, it would need to be morally obligatory for all people to be performing it at all times, regardless of the circumstances.

That seems to be a ridiculous standard for evaluating the legitimacy of any action, and I would have no problem dismissing it out of hand as being completely baseless. It would, in effect, ban all inflicted behaviors. And while that may be Stefan's goal, it's clear that the ban on inflicted behaviors would be nothing more than an artifact of that ridiculous requirement. So hopefully, Stefan doesn't take the universality requirement to mean what you suggested. That's not to say that all inflicted behaviors shouldn't be banned, but this explanation of why they should be banned seems unreasonable and utterly unfounded.

------------------

The idea that status can't play any role in moral theories is ludicrous. There's a difference between class and status, in that class implies inequality between people and status does not. If I am a Zen master, then I may surely hit my students (it's part of some Zen training programs), though I would not be justified in doing the same to people who weren't my students, and my students would not be justified in hitting me.

But it occurs to me that such behaviors are not "inflicted" in the sense that others need to volunteer themselves in some sense. In the same way, to kill other soldiers on the basis of their being soldiers would not really qualify as an inflicted behavior, because the victims would have had to declare themselves to be combatants (like my Zen students declare themselves to be my students, and accept what that entails). Accordingly the soldier's actions could not be evaluated with ethical rules, so long as she only killed other soldiers, who in declaring themselves to be soldiers took on the risk of being killed by other soldiers at the same time that they agreed that they would kill other soldiers if they could. Declaring oneself to be a combatant is completely avoidable, and if the only people that combatants were allowed to kill were other combatants, then their choice to do so would fall under aesthetics. That seems to be perfectly within Stefan's theory.

The second half of Danny's post really makes a great point. Morality is a human creation. Without moral agents doing things and judging those actions there is no morality. Therefore morality must derive from the way in which moral agents actually judge actions. Since real moral agents do not judge actions the same way in all situations, it seems that any claim for an actual universal morality that exists empirically must rely on some authority that transcends the moral agents. Otherwise we are just discussing what a universal morality ought to be.

We can claim that a universal morality ought to condemn the soldier for killing other soldiers, but the soldier can claim that morality ought to recognize that the other soldier agreed to the rules of that game.

Guest

I've not been following this really closely. I have one issue that seems to come up and which, to me, is so ridiculous as to not be worthy of mention... except that it keeps getting mentioned, and so I'm curious.

The idea that if something is moral it is prescribed and otherwise it is proscribed. I would suggest that it is moral to eat chocolate ice cream. At least it sure doesn't seem IMmoral, and hence I guess it is moral. But then it is insane to deduce from this that everyone should always eat chocolate ice cream and be shot if they don't. That's just plain stupid. Is this a serious argument???

- NonE

Number of posts: 434 Location: Red Deer, Alberta Registration date: 2007-10-16

It's from UPB. Stefan has declared that morality only apples to 'violently inflicted preferences' so that the non-moral option is removed. What this declaration is based upon is not too clear.

_________________

http://tails-dx.deviantart.com/gallery/
My daughters art. =3

Guest

I know that is the source of it, I'm just wondering how anyone with any kind of rational thought could support such an idea. Are there others here who do? It just seems blatantly insane, and I keep seeing it here and there.

I guess I'm asking the question because it seems SO over-the-edge that I feel as though I must be missing something, yet I can't see what it is that I'm missing.

- NonE

{edit} Oops. I guess that I don't understand what this means:

Quote:

tefan has declared that morality only apples to 'violently inflicted preferences' so that the non-moral option is removed.

Number of posts: 434 Location: Red Deer, Alberta Registration date: 2007-10-16

Well if you're evaluating an action with regards to morality, you would try to determine if it was moral, immoral, or none of the above, right? Stefan says that he already knows which types of actions concern morality, so when evaluating those, you need not consider 'none of the above'.

_________________

http://tails-dx.deviantart.com/gallery/
My daughters art. =3

» ..error kicks
» Media Disconnected Networking Error
» Understanding the Scriptures, Scott Hahn,
» What part of the Integumentary System do you have a hard time understanding?
» Having trouble getting signatures to show up

UPB - show me the error of my understanding

UPB - show me the error of my understanding

Similar topics

Similar topics