Review: Universally Preferable Behaviour

[TreachMarkets]

Eating the ice cream now is universally preferable.

[nurbSoldier]

I personally find that the term "Universally Preferred Behavior" is not one that should be used by Anarchists, Libertarians, Classic Liberals, Objectivists, Constitutionalists or any other freedom lovers for that matter. The exception to that rule would be to be ironic.

The reason being is that the very title implies that there is a correct way to act. Fascists all think that people should act a certain way. As do communists. Same thing with theocrats and other absolutists.

[nurbSoldier]

@nurbSoldier Morality needs to be about what you are not allowed to do to others. Lies, murder, rape, war, etc. I can also accept the argument that morality can be about saving a life, like that of a drowning person, but I feel that that is going off on a tangent.

But morality or universally correct action for deciding what kind of ice cream you like? That is ridiculous. You do not hurt nor help anyone by choosing vanilla over chocolate. Good for Stefan for not discussing stuff like that

[truevoice08]

Why theft and murder is immoral? Uh.. isn't it because of self-ownership which will imply that people own their lives and property(Rothbard). Why is there self-ownership? Uh.. because man would've perished thousands of years ago if it didn't(Hoppe).

[XOmniverse]

Why are you using the word "Uh" to make it sound like I am stupid?

[truevoice08]

Sorry, I didn't intend to. But can you answer the question?

[XOmniverse]

Let me pose the question to you and I think we might get to the bottom of it.

Why SHOULDN'T I murder? And why SHOULD I care about whether or not my viewpoints imply the destruction of mankind, etc?

[truevoice08]

Look, I'm still starting to read about ethics, human nature and stuff and I'd appreciate if you suggest books or videos. To answer your question, I don't think its in your interest to push for the destruction of mankind. And that's what ethics is all about right? To guide our actions in such a way that would promote peace and cooperation. Besides, isn't this the whole point of Atlas Shrugged? To hold life as the highest value

[truevoice08]

What I don't understand is why bother to ask these questions of whether I should eat ice cream now or later. I mean, your not a determinist are you?

[XOmniverse]

I'm a compatibilist.

I actually agree with a lot of your other comment, but I don't think that's the idea UPB tries to sell. It doesn't appeal to life or happiness as a core value.

[truevoice08]

Ok. So you agree to helping a dying person stuck under a tree and a saving a drowning child. :) Do you know what are the criticisms of Hoppe's argumentation ethics?

[glopur0]

You spoke of decisions not regarding interactions with other people, isn't that what the science of psychology is for?

[XOmniverse]

I don't think the role of psychology is to determine what people ought to do, no.

Read Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle and you'll see that ethics, traditionally, does not deal solely with interpersonal matters.

[kulza23]

Good insights.  Thanks.

[rj77nz]

Are you posting this from a prison cell?

[XOmniverse]

No, I just don't have any posters :P

[smacksim]

Your 2 problems with the theory are not relevant to the theory. Gravity isn't false because we don't know why it works universally (the 'why' wish). Similarly, your ice-cream critique isn't about ethics but concerns amoral causality, not even personal ethics per se (it could, but isn't necessarily so).

[dysurian]

I'm not sure UPB is meant to be used to decide whether you should eat your ice cream or not. From my reading of the book (and my understanding of Stefan's theory of UPB) it's used to differentiate between what is a moral question and what is not a moral question. By saying that UPB doesn't apply to your ice cream, you're just saying that it's not a moral question, but one of personal preference.

[XOmniverse]

I'm saying that ethics don't only exist in the presence of other human beings. If you were on a desert island and no other humans existed, you'd still need a standard by which to make decisions.

[dysurian]

Oh sure. Of course, but not every decision is an ethical one, right? I can still decide whether I should get coconuts or not on a desert island. If I try using UPB on that decision process, the only thing I'll find out is that it doesn't fall under UPB, and is therefore not a moral decision. UPB isn't meant to be a general decision-making took, but an ethical decision-making tool.

[XOmniverse]

All decisions are ethical ones, yes. Some are of minor consequence (such as if I eat a bowl of ice cream now or save it for later), but think of it like gravity; effectively, we don't treat small objects like they have gravitational pull even though they do, simply because they have NEGLIGIBLE gravitational pull.

[dysurian]

Interesting. It seems to be that ethics is actually more like another science (like physics) and that talking about bowls of cereal is like talking about biology, or something. Ethics is just another science, so not all questions apply to it. You wouldn't need a complex understanding of the refraction of light in order to be an effective psychologist. Is "2+2=4" ethical? Any system that attempted to prove one way or the other would be maddening, no?

[XOmniverse]

Ethics is the science of making decisions. 2+2=4 isn't a decision, so no, ethics does not apply to it.

[Youhavethebody]

Thanks for the review. It seems that my earlier comment wasn't posted. Judging from your review, the UPB is not valid since it does not concern itself with answering *why* certain actions are moral or immoral.

This would make any political views pointless for me to consider, as they would not be logically validated to the ethics. I may still read the book yet.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

In order to kill (not in the case of suicide) you have to initiate violence against another individual. To initiate violence is to reject one's right to liberty.

If people don't want to use logic, they don't have to, and if people want to kill, they will. They just can't say it's moral without contradicting themselves.

If you want to put forth moral arguments, you have to be logical. You can disagree all you want, but your opinions are not a matter of importance when it comes to what is true.

[qtronman]

"UPB protractor" -- I like the analogy.

[Questionablescum]

The fact that someone disagrees with something something does not mean it is not universal. A morality that was agreed upon by everyone is not necessarily objective, as that would rely on an ad populum fallacy.

[neutrinoide]

It is true but it isn't what upb is about.

[IItothe222345helomot]

I understand your point but when it comes to your own behavior, that does not effect anyone else, then why would you need to have some kind of morality? You could respond to this with 'what's wrong with committing suicide?'

I would say sure it's a shame that that person committed suicide but it doesn't effect me so I don't care and if that person wanted to then it's all fine.

[IItothe222345helomot]

(continued)

So I'm just saying why does there need to be a morality when it comes to what one does with one's own life? Shouldn't that just be left up to them?

[XOmniverse]

I'm not saying an enforced morality; but we need some standard on which to determine what decisions to make, even those that don't involve others.

In other words, we need core ethics (my terminology) not as a guide for others but as a guide for OURSELVES.

[IItothe222345helomot]

Then why don't individuals make up their own core ethics? Instead of having someone else make it up.

[XOmniverse]

I refer you to my videos on ethics, since an answer to that could not fit into comments.

[Naijagalca]

Your "favourite youtuber" just wants to say hello

[Youhavethebody]

You should read "Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality"

[neutrinoide]

Oh and Ethical relativility is contracdiction that self destruct itself. He create UPB because he found flaws in objectivism. What happen to you man? No more "stay rational" quote.

[neutrinoide]

The problem is in the semantic. When he means Universal preferable behavior isnt about what every individual taste in behavior will be accept to everyone. Which seem what you seem to understand. It is about verifying if a preferable behavior is applicable in pratice. E-mc2 is universal true but I can still say I don't accept it.

[blackacidlizzard]

If one desires life than one must [eat, drink, avoid bullets, whatever]. These are universal requirements to this end. Hence "preferable" (to an end result) instead of "preffered".

All statements are either true, false or subjective (terms like enjoyable, difficult, tedious, etc.) "True" and "false" are universal statements. Existance or non-existance is not subjective, to say something exists is to say it exists regardless of preferences or perceptions.

[blackacidlizzard]

If an end result is sought one must follow at least some specific actions, but if those actions must be kept non-universal for them to be effective (thievery, murder) then those actions can not be said to be valid means to that end.

[jparagons]

Maybe you could talk about why the "brain in a vat" argument against certainty/knowledge is a load of crap? I'd be interested in hearing your take on it.

[neutrinoide]

Go read the book. It is clear you don't know what is UPB.

[brainpolice2]

So your concern that keeps not being addressed has to do with virtue in the context of the isolated individual? Could that really be described as "ethics" though? Wether or not to eat ice cream? It may have to do with the objective criteria for the isolated individual's wellbeing, but I pause at considering such questions "ethical".

[godlesstechnocrat]

Ethics is supposed to answer the question of how to act, not just how to act in relation to other people. That is why I provided another, less trivial example in my previous comment.

[sonata1992]

I had a similar feeling. I don't regard what you do as an individual to have any connection to ethics unless it involves other people. Getting into personal behavior seems religious to me.

[Elhan2005]

I'll stick to Hoppe, TYVM.

[godlesstechnocrat]

Plus, the tendency to care only about your actions in relation to others in ethics is definitely not unique to Stefan. All ethicists tend to think like this. You personal problems are irrelevent to morality. I think this is a direct result of the dominance of altruism in ethics.

[godlesstechnocrat]

Instead of ice cream, you could say it is a choice between going to college after you get outta high school or going to work. The point is that social ethics don't really help you with your private issues. Of course, I haven't read the book so I don't know if there would be an answer in UPB for this. . .

[Durgeofcerberus]

i like tits

[EntertainedWatcher]

everyone likes tits

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

***"Well the main dispute I would have with stefan is that moral behavior... is...well...NOT UNIVERSAL."

In the context of Stef's book, that's like asserting that 2+2=9 in your opinion. Whether Person X believes murder is ethical has no bearing on whether it is or isn't.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Interesting take on UPB. I didn't approach it that way, but I see your point from the egoistic angle. Got a couple of comments, which I'll put forth on video if I can get my damn camera to function again.

[lemur257]

Thanks for your review. I haven't read the book yet, but I plan to. Universality implies reciprocity. If UPB is right then obedience cannot be moral because you cannot obey someone who is obeying you. Commanding them to command you to command them... is an infinite regress. Isn't this sufficient to demolish the allegedly moral foundations of the state? Do we, as anarchists, require more of an ethical theory?

[Kbiomech]

Yes, because if you create a vacuum without some ethical framework to back it up, it could quite possibly degenerate back to the State. Further, people need a framework to base their life around. It doesn't need to be coercive, however. Just a good guideline. Properly cherry picked, even the biblical outline has merit.

OTOH, morals "imposed from above" never work out. Haven't once, and with that preponderance of evidence, I am AMAZED that people still accept the State.

[Kbiomech]

Ok, you suggested a topic that can easily be a whole series of videos all by your lonesome there, my friend. Explain these ethical concepts you find lacking. I haven't read the book but I DO know what you're talking about. And while I can conceptualize the answers, I am having a hard time putting them in non ambiguous words.

[idonthavemyid]

So do you really think there's capacity for immorality with the scenario you described of deciding to either eat or save ice cream?

[neutrinoide]

So what you said is neither true or false? Why you even try to say it is wrong or not. If you just say "I" prefer not to be universal behavior you only say your 'opinion' but you don't put forward any ethical argument. Saying there is no UPB is not like saying "I" "prefer" the behavior to not be universal. Which it is?

[ForOrAgainstUs]

I believe the argument is that if you merely hold an opinion, then that opinion cannot be moral since morals must be universal to be considered valid. Also, your opinions hold absolutely no weight over what is true. It may be your personal preference that there is no universally preferable behavior, but that doesn't make it true. The evidence that UPB exists is the fact that you argue against it.

[neutrinoide]

What he said..(ForOrAgainstUs).

[ForOrAgainstUs]

Dude, I want to hear you talk to Stef for one of his podcasts!

[hatethestate]

Seconded.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

Yeah, I think a Q&A session between you two would help clarify each of your positions on this. I am not quite clear on what your criticism is.

[Trandofir]

Agreed.

[lordmetroid]

Nah, Stef don't take critique very well... Would be useless.

[stefbot]

Him it's Stef - thanks for reviewing the book - I appreciate the video. Can I ask you to send me a message, so I can learn more about your criticisms?

Thanks again! :)

[neutrinoide]

You just did prove him right by saying that.

[neutrinoide]

He did explain where ehtic come from.Each time someone try to prove your argument is wrong or tell you what is right, he accept UPB.

[D4rkReaver13]

I was considering buying this book, and I think I would probably come out with a similar perspective on it. From what I've heard of Stefan's ethics, it does seem to be very similar to the rational egoism of Objectivism, but with the standard of value removed and replaced with "universal preference". "Preferable to whom and by what standard?" is what I came out asking. Thanks for the review, was informative.

[Chuloloc]

Interesting.