Here we go again... Just because one can contrive a logically self-consistent theory that may even, in some instances, apply to some, or even a majority of situations in one's current "reality", why does it then follow that one then OUGHT TO use this theory to govern one's behavior or thinking? Simply because it is logically self-consistent? Methinks not. You don't get to do that without a preference. Which is fine. But it's personal and not universal and objective!
What does UPB say in the debate of active and passive euthanasia. Is it not universally preferable to humanely kill someone that is in miserable pain and who asks to die, or does UPB's intolerance of initiating violence forbid this killing? It's for my ethics course and I'm still an amateur at UPB, so any takers?
Morals.. If you piss off enough people, it's not good for you.
Conscience.
Logical inconsistencies don't go well with the brain for some. One feels bad because one has to keep up lies and remember lies to get away with it, and in the end one realizes it's a lot more stress free to remain truthful than lie, and getting caught of lying harms the individuals emotions and credibility. Lie too much, and it's not good for you.
You can justify any action to yourself if youre skilled enough.
You imply that claims are either universal or opinion. Why? I can deny UPB without making any claim to universality. In fact, as a run-of-the-mill skeptic, my denials tend to be conditional and contextual, rather than universal. I simply say, "this doesn't seem sound given the evidence at hand", not "this can't be true in any context, at any time, given the evidence at hand". This skeptical perspective is fully compatible with and has a long historical relationship to science.
Is it universally preferable to dismiss theories that don't seem sounds, given the evidence? If so, then that's UPB. If not, then it's just an opinion, and thus you don't have an objective way to say oppose someone who asserts UPB. Does that make sense?
>Is it universally preferable to dismiss theories that don't seem sound, given the evidence?
There is no skeptical answer to this. The scope is far too broad to be substantiated with sufficient evidence, so the attempted rhetorical trap can't spring. Yes, skeptics work from the premise that theories should be well grounded in evidence before being conditionally accepted, but this premise has no necessary entailment of claims to universality. Practicality or conditionality are sufficient.
The conditions for acceptable evidence are varied and change depending on the circumstance. "Conditionally accepted" simply means that the theory may be cast off when conditions change (i.e. evidence is undermined or replaced).
You definitely can assert that it is practical to act as though UPBs exist, but this does not demonstrate their existence. Further, someone could make a counter-claim that assertions of UPB are impractical in a given situation without asserting a UPB in the process.
You can assert that UPBs exist, but the practicality of your making such an assertion has no bearing on their actual existence and offers no clear evidence for or against it in and of itself.
I'm happy to accept that UPBs may be applicable to some situations and inapplicable to others, but none of this has any bearing on the assertion that UPB theory cannot be denied without asserting a UPB, which is simply false.
You dismiss unrealistic situations that object to UPB, then you use a man in a coma as a rule of thumb for rejecting unchosen positive ethical obligations. Since when are coma patient moral creatures? A coma patient is, for all intents and purposes, not a person for the duration of the coma. If someone was born, lived and died in a coma, I doubt anyone would consider them moral creatures in any relevant sense. How can a rock be a means of determining the legitimacy of a moral proposition?
This is what I'm talking about though. It's surely not a universal objective standard that you can't morally ask a person to commit suicide? If it is, how can it be demonstrated?
It's that very assumption that I'm trying to target here. And I don't really know how UPB, or any other moral system, accounts for this. If it is so, then why is it so? Isn't that essentially a form of egoism, even if one only applies it to this one area of ethics?
I see. It makes sense as a conclusion, but I'm not really sure that I follow all the logic so far. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I might not be following it properly.
The problem I have is that there is definitely, and very literally, 'choice' involved. But I assume your use of 'choice' is more contextual in terms of morality.
So I'm not really sure why the fact that the choice is between two violent alternatives means that there is no 'moral' choice, or however it should be phrased.
Well it's a hypothetical, the point of which is to test the outermost extreme of what you said, so no, the only two options are die, or detonate. Another assumption is that (SOMEHOW?!) if you choose to die, the bomb won't be detonated.
I realise this is totally unrealistic, and if you don't want to waste your time thinking about it, then fair enough. But for example, I would like to think that I wouldn't detonate the bomb, but I wonder whether you think it would be morally acceptable to do so.
Sorry, I realise that this is outwith the context of your discussion, but you don't actually stand by that as a a principle do you?
The only thing a person is being 'forced' to do while at gunpoint is to make a value judgment on his own life. A person who thinks that this situation lacks choice is, logically, one who would always value his own life above the action he is being 'forced' to do.
Extreme example: would you detonate a bomb, killing 10,000 people to save your own life?
Wow, what a superb video! This has totally changed my view on ethics, for the better I think. Wonderful, I'll have to order a copy of 'UPB'. Very thought-provoking stuff.
I would lie. But I don`t like to be lied too so I put foward a value that I accept and refuse at the same time. But you see i'm a human that says I'm not an human. Like a molecule of salt trying to tell me he is water. Because denying my proprieties has an human is a the way I found to avoid ethical argument. I like all your clowns: Confy/ BP2 / D4S inc. You all look in the mirror and refuse to accept your reflexion.
Don't lump me in the same category as two people that are practically my arch enemies. I don't agree with confederalsocialist's and d4shawn's philosophies. In fact, I find their philosophies disgusting and irrational.
No, it means it can't be universalized, for to make the proposition violates the principle. That's a blatant contradiction and it's also hypocritical and evasive, which is why moral nihilists hate UPB so much, it shows them that they're acting as such. So rather than fess up, they just attack UPB, which is only a methodology.
Neither can "never lie" be reasonably universalized without leading to absurd scenarios in certain circumstances. For example, it may actually be in your rational self-interest to lie to a criminal in order to save your life or your friend's life. To require people to never lie as an absolute moral rule is thus absurd in such a circumstance. This was a basic flaw with Kant's ethics, which is basically what UPB is: Kant's ethics restated, without the elaborate theory behind it.
A more obvious example may be if someone is torturing you (and you're innocent) in the attempt to extract information from you that will allow them to do something that is also simultaneously immoral. If you tell the truth, this information will be used to murder someone that is innocent. If you lie, you will stop being tortured and you'll be released. In such a case, I would say that lieing is in fact *the right thing to do* and in your rational self-interest.
Well, of course it is. I call it self defence. When someone wants to kill you what you have to do to get out of the situation, or save another, is morally valid. I don't know if Stef, or anyone else agrees with me on this, but from what I understand of UPB, from reading Steffs books, its consistent with his theory. The key here is the childish exclamation "he started it". Its not however good to lie to someone who lies to you if you can get out of the interaction non- violently.
What you can't do with UPB is say "lying is universally preferable". Besides, its explained in the first 6 minutes of the video. Telling the truth is really in the category "aesthetically preferable". Sorry, but I must ask, did you read any of the books? Or see the video?
Well, I reject his definition of morality that places all non-interpersonal questions outside of morality, and would place the question of whether or not you should lie in certain circumstances in the realm of "aesthetics". It is *not* an aesthetic question as to whether or not an innocent person should lie to save their life or their innocent friend's life.
Sure its not. Becouse the question here IS NOT about truth, but about the initiation of violence. Didn't you read what I wrote? Lying to get out of a life threatening situation shifts the focus away from truth and lies to the initiation of violence. Seems pretty common sense to me. There are priorities, you know. and UPB covers it pretty thoroughly, as far as I understand.
Actually it has nothing to do with the initiation of violence. The question is: "ought you or ought not you to lie in situation X?". Morality cannot be simplified to a question about violence.
Dude, its exasperating. We're talking live examples here, right? If someone threatened to kill you, would you REALLY give a fuck about being truthfull to him? No, becouse the focus here is violence, and you lying is just a response to him trying to skewer you with a pencil or something. The same as in physical self defence. Using violence in physical self defence is moral according to UPB and anyone with even half a brain. WATCH the effing video!
You're missing my point, which is that morality cannot be reduced to nothing more than questions about physical violence. That is a narrow definition of morality.
Stefan is well aware that objective morality does not exist. I asked him this directly in his chatroom after a slow discussion with a couple of FDR members who claimed that this was not the case.
Instead, Stefan attempts to manufacture a morality based on several key principles, which many peoples' morality lack. I think of it as a kind of "Well if we're going to do this ethics thing, we may as well do it right" position.
Excellent! In the first two minutes you had already cleared up two of the biggest points of confusion from the UPB book. A second edition seems justified.
I heard an interesting statistic on the radio the other day, and that was " the most non returned books in university libraries are books on ethics and the higher you go in the realm of ethics books the less likely they are to be returned. interesting eh, a real study it was too, sry i can't be bothered foot note it.
Thanks I'm not familiar with it - not a philosopher unfortunately. I'll try to check it out online.
It's also seems related to the Unanimity Principle. Or at least rather than utilitarian - which is often referred to as the greatest happiness for the greatest number (but which is also defined as increasing the sum of all happiness) - something which I am unsure has a name, the greatest happiness for all. i.e. each and every individual.
Even if you CAN get an ought from an is ethics would essentially be an invisible pink unicorn. They COULD exist but you have no way to know whether they are true or not.
All ethical theories require either untestable or absurd assumptions. Stef's assumptions are
1)Moral rules should be universal.
2)There should not be radically different sets of moral rules of certain groups of people. Everyone should be subject to the same rules.
Though my deep down feelings align with these great ideas they do not appeal to my logical mind. Logic would beg me not to have blind faith in these assumptions. Mere assumptions is not a great basis to be proving something.
"Ethics" is just an arbitrary set of rules made up by Stefan. The rules aren't actually derived from anything.
You can certainly say that an "ethical" action must be something that everybody can do simultaneouly, but that's just a description (not a prescription). You can't explain WHY people SHOULD only do things that can hypothetically be done by everybody simultaneously.
There is no reason. It's just an arbitrary rule that Stefan came up with to rationalize his personal preferences.
Stef must have be brainwashed, because it sounds like you're saying that I should believe what you're saying, even though you're saying there is no reason I should believe what you're saying.
Are you just coming up with arbitrary rules based on your own preferences, or is there some reason I should accept what you're saying as true?
"it sounds like you're saying that I should believe what you're saying, even though you're saying there is no reason I should believe what you're saying."
If that's how it sounds to you, then you need to clean out your ears and re-read what I've said.
I've never said that you should or shouldn't do anything.
At this point, you are clearly just making stuff up.
Whether or not you have an interest in "the truth" (valid logic) is up to you. If you don't have an interest in valid logic, then there's no point in this discussion.
I guess we need to establish whether or not we both share an interest in "truth" (i.e. logic). I just assumed that you did since you were engaged in this discussion on this thread. If you're not interested in logic (and it's valid application), then there is no reason you should listen to anything I say. If you are interested in logic and reason, then let me know, and we will continue our discussion.
I'm trying to derive a principle from what you are saying.
For example, if you said we should all go out beating up old people, I'd say, so you believe in the initiation of violence against old people. That's not what you said, but that's the principle I derived from what you said.
If you say I shouldn't listen to what Stefan says because he's just putting forth his preferences, you're saying that I should listen to what you're saying, but not because you're just putting forth your preferences
Huh? I put forth a random assertion in order to analogize what extracting a principle from a statement would look like.
Anyway, it sounds like you're just responding to the video and not the theory in its entirety, which could be why it may sound like I'm putting words in your mouth. Have you read the book UPB?
Great. So tell me if you can see a problem in this reasoning.
I prefer logic. Violence cannot be used to prove a statement logically. Therefore, if I want to be logical, I ought not use violence in an attempt to prove a statement logically.
Well yeah... but that's like saying that mustard can't be used to fuel a car. It's true, but what's the point in bringing it up? Nobody thinks otherwise.
Violence can not prove a statement logically anymore than it can solve a math problem or paint a picture.
Many problems of the world are attempted to be solved using violence as are many statements justified with the use of violence. Government being the main example.
Violence necessarily ends a debate, since at no point is violence ever established as a valid form of debating.
If you used mustard or jogging, I'd tell you the same thing. There is a valid way to debate. If you prefer logic, you must ___. (Prescription from description)
"I have said over and over again that "shoulds" (or "oughts") can only be logically derived from "ifs"."
Why? You can derive oughts from anything. So you're using an ought already. For example; "I like cheese, therefore I ought to watch TV."
If one says there's something wrong with this, then it's invoking an ought. It's a correction. If we say it's illogical, we're saying I *ought* to accept logic, universality etc. That's UPB. Everyone is already using oughts, all the time, that's the thing!
Again, you are straw manning me. I am not PRESCRIBING logic.
You're simply playing a game where you refuse to acknowledge the difference between description and prescription. Just because I DESCRIBE something (i.e. logic), doesn't mean I am PRESCRIBING something.
So why/how are you correcting me? It's a massive, epic contradiction. If there is no valid ought, then why change my mind? You can derive an ought any time you like, for any reason. 'Cannot' simply means 'ought not' since there is no physical law which is stopping me. If there is no physical law preventing me oughts, then is/ought is getting an ought. Thus the magical is/ought "dichotomy" contradicts itself. You also assume logic/reason/truth is *universally* preferable when correcting me.
lukeev: I am ASSUMING that you ALREADY have a personal preference for valid logic (as opposed to invalid logic).
The reason I have made that assumption, is because we are having this discussion, and usually that means somebody is interested in logic and logical debate.
We shouldn't have to start out every debate by establishing whether or not we both share an interest in the valid application of logic. That should be a given. It would be really obnoxious to have to do that with every person.
He's not saying that you're prescribing logic. He's saying that you're prescribing a correction that he ought follow if he prefers logic.
Every time you correct someone, you're prescribing universally preferable behavior. That something is illogical is not just your preference. It's a universal prescription.
You contradict yourself if you say you're not offering prescriptions for correcting his behavior, since the act of correction is a prescription for his behavior.
"If you say I shouldn't listen to what Stefan says because he's just putting forth his preferences, you're saying that I should listen to what you're saying, but not because you're just putting forth your preferences"
So there must be some reason as to why I should accept what you're saying. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter what you say.
The reason I should accept it is because I do accept logic. Therefore I am obligated to accept it. So, "I accept logic" is a premise. If my preference for logic becomes to accept logical conclusions, then why cannot other preferences be premises or conclusions to which we must apply logic in order to maintain consistency?
In case you can't see it, I responded in the middle of this thread.
But yeah, I don't disagree with you. But here we have a preference that takes the place of a premise in order to draw a logical conclusion. So, you're not denying that preferences can be used to draw logical conclusions..
I'm not denying the existence of pragmatism. If you have a preference for something, then there are ways of accomplishing that thing that are effective, and ways that are not.
If you want to cook a turkey, putting it in the freezer won't work.
And what am I saying anyway? Ethics do not exist in reality so there is nothing to "prove". Just because you point out that an ethical theory is logically consistent doesn't prove it is true. Logically consistency is not proof of existence.
"Ethics" don't exist in reality. They aren't made of matter or energy. But, "actions" are an effect of matter and thus exist in reality.
"Ethics" are simply theories that we use to describe human actions involving the use of force. Just as if we want to accurately describe the motion of the planets we must put forward a logically consistent scientific theory, if we want to accurately describe human actions involving the use of force, we must put forward a logically consistent ethical theory.
A simple search on wikipedia provides two types of ethical theories, descriptive and normative. UPB does not proscribe any ethical theories, rather we can use it to analyze ethical theories that human beings describe.
So to pull an example for the wiki article, Europeans believe it's wrong to leave babies in the snow. Inuit don't believe it's wrong. We can use UPB to determine which description is consistent.
Whether or not people agree with that consistency is irrelevant.
"Europeans believe it's wrong to leave babies in the snow. Inuit don't believe it's wrong."
UPB then, is a measure of how good someone's excuse (justification for an action) is.
If I simply say, "Leaving babies in the snow is neither wrong nor right, it is simply an effective method of population/birth control", then suddenly, my justification doesn't suffer from any logical flaws, and thus the action is justifiable.
No, you cannot use UPB to favor either position over the other, only to show that they aren't consistent with eachother. But it gives us no basis to each either position over the other. Consistency by itself tells us nothing about the actual validity of a given principle. It only tells us if our principles contradict eachother, but not if our principles are valid or not in and of themselves. In this way, UPB actually does not function to justify or unjustify any particular ethical premise.
For example, my ethical principle can be "the initiation of violence is moral". While UPB can catch me in a contradiction if another premise of mine which entails that "the initiation of violence is not moral", the revelation of the fact that "the initiation of violence is moral" contradicts "the initiation of violence is not moral" does not constitute a proof or disproof of either premise. In short, UPB gives us no reason to favor either side of the binary. It can only reveal hypocrisy.
UPB can, through binary logic, demonstrate when either (1) ethical proposition A contradicts ethical proposition B or (2) an ethical proposition contradicts the behavior of its proponent. But the fact that A contradicts B isn't a proof or disproof of either A or B unless we assume the validity of one side of the binary already, and personal hypocrisy is irrelevant. UPB doesn't tell us anything that we did not already know and fails to justify or invalidate any particular ethical proposition.
Someone's hypocrisy does not constitute a disproof of their premises. If I claim that initiating violence is wrong and proceed to attack you, that doesn't disprove the premise that initiating violence is wrong. If I claim that initiating violence is moral and never attack anyone ever, that doesn't disprove the premise that initiating violence is right. In this way, UPB doesn't provide any basis to evaluate moral propositions on their own merits.
The same goes for an internal contradiction between someone's premises. If someone believes that initiating violence is wrong but supports the state, yes, this is an inconcistency in their position. However, the revelation of this fact by itself does not constitute a proof or disproof of either non-aggression or statism as principles. It only reveals cognitive dissonance, assuming the validity of one of the premises in the first place.
You want absolutes, but UPB can not give you absolutes, so you are angry that there is not absolute morality... :D haha. Funny. get back to the practice.
No, I'm rejecting absolutism in the sense that UPB claims to be defining morality in such terms in the first place. Not a problem with me, it's a flaw with Kantian universalism in the first place.
Yes, a classic sleight of hand. Except by "absolutism" I mean "a moral principle that applies regaurdless of circumstances or consequences or context, and that is supposed to be justified categorically without respect to its relation to other values". I am not using an "absolutist" basis to reject that kind of "absolutism", it is simply a rejection of a rather Kantian, deontological definition of morality.
Let's use "property rights" as an example. I reject "absolutist property rights" in the following sense: my moral theory says that it is morally permissible and in the rational self-interest of the guy who is hanging from the flagpole in the flagpole scenario to break the window. In this sense, I don't view "property rights" as absolute, since in such circumstances I side with the preservation of one's life. This also actually provides a solution to lifeboat scenarios, rather than dismissing em.
What I meant, was that you want be 100 percent sure, that something is true, but science do NOT work that way. I keep in mind scientific method here. You can be 100 sure only in mathematics, as fas as I know.
You seem to try very hard to find a force that will make people act. Hypocricys isn`t a disproof UPB either. It likes saying someone not believing that gun can kill disprove its danger. The contradiction give us a start to see if it even applicable as universal ethic. Later, you come up with emperical evidences to support your ethic. But you seem to just forget what was said in the video and continue with your own pre-concived ideas instead of understanding what was put forward.
What you seem to be missing is the fact that literally ANY ethical premise can be "validated" by UPB as a universal ethic, so long as one doesn't simultaneously have another premise that contradicts it and so long as one acts in accordance with it. It literally completely avoids the task of moral philosophy, which is to function as a guide for what we "ought" or "ought not" to do. It doesn't tell us that, nor does it provided a basis for choosing any particular principle over another.
Realistically; you had one discussion with Stef where you just agreed, then you acted like a coward & troll and attacked him *afterwards* in a blog post likely because 1) you know your 'arguments' don't stand up to scrutiny especially when you actually have to debate live and 2) you know that arguing against UPB uses UPB & it annoys you, because it means you should actually put ethics into practice rather than continuing to engage in pointless intellectual masturbation for the rest of your life.
Actually I persistently disagreed, but Stefbot kept shifting the discussion away from what I was talking about and didn't address any of my points directly.
Nor does it try to. I'm convinced you've not actually read the book, but it simply causes you anxiety and you'd rather prove someone wrong than seek the truth.
Whether one should or shouldn't do something depends entirely upon whether that thing achieves a desired goal.
What ethicist try to do, are pretend there are consequences when there are none.
Stef believes that people should only do things that everybody could hypothetically do all at the same time. Why? There's absolutely no reason at all for me to adhere to such a bizarre parameter, that has no consequences in reality.
Except all people actually exist meaning it's based on an actuality. Zeus and friends are not real. If someone said "Zeus wants people to only do things that all can do at the same time" then you may adhere to it because it's consistent but not because it's from The Z-man.
A Kantian would argue something along these lines: murder is wrong because if the principle of murder were universalized, everyone would kill eachother off and noone would be left. Of course, this is a rather superficial argument and it inherently has to sneak a consequentialist premise into the mix. A Kantian may argue along these lines: murder is wrong because it is inconsistent for you to claim a right not to be murdered while claiming a right to murder. I've explained why this is inadequate.
Saying that UPB is invalid is not the same thing as saying "It is universally preferable to deny theories that are invalid". That is non sequitor. The only thing you can conclude is
1)I found it preferable to deny your theory.
2)I find it preferable that everyone else accepts my criticism of your theory.
Though I may personally believe that denying invalid theories is a universally good thing I cannot possible say that everyone believes this. I can only conclude what I said above.
I generally consider myself a fairly bright person, but found this video to be way over my head. It has inspired me to take a phil course on ethics so that I may comment more intelligently on the subject.
For what it's worth coming from one who is woefully undereducated on the subject, however, I enjoyed the video ^_^
Stef, I thought you clarified that the P was "preferable," not "preferred," which sounded to me like should, not will.
From your video: "it doesn't empirically describe what people already prefer, but a theoretical examination of what people should prefer universally."
But you say that Shawnonomics is supposed to use "will" and not "should." I am confused.
Someone needs to get Stef some ice cream. I've got a theory, based on sound observation, that he likes it.
We have to try as many flavors as possible, so we can narrow down what TYPE of ice cream he likes, as well as to validate that he does, indeed, like ice cream.
The question is, why are we obligated to accept such a statement as true?
It's Kant's hypothetical imperative: If we accept the premises by which we are able to make any statement, then we must accept its conclusions.
You can't get an ought from an is is a logical statement that, if we accept its premises, we ought accept it as a conclusion. But like he said, it's getting an ought from an "is not."
"You can't get an ought from an is" is a conclusion, not a premise--which is what you appear to be saying. The principles of logic are the premises, and anyone who adheres to logic obligate themselves to accept logical conclusions, and otherwise contradict themselves if they do not accept logical conclusions.
That probably wasn't clear from my previous post.
Are you asking me what the ramifications of the "is/ought dichotomy" are?
Well... many people here seem to think that "oughts" can just be arbitrarily derived from nothing, or exist without reference to a particular goal or preference.
For example, it does not logically follow, that because the dog has no food, you should feed the dog.
In order to determine whether or not you should feed the dog, a GOAL (an "if") must be identified.
IF you want the dog to starve, THEN you shouldn't feed it.
I'm not sure what that means, but here's what I do know:
a) If you want to comment upon this video, posting a comment here is an effective way of doing that.
b) Whether or not someone wants to comment upon this video is an issue of personal preference.
Thus, we have the two things that people often refer to as "ethics": pragmatism and personal preference. That is all "ethics" is or ever can be (preference+pragmatism).
Obviously, a statist will then say: "AHA! Almost everyone consents to taxation (or conscription or what have you) when asked after the fact, so it is reasonable for us to take half of your pay."
On top of that, I'm sure they would follow it up with a maniacal laugh while their friend is pulling your pants down for you.
I was wondering if you had any new thoughts on what virtuous behavior is in UPB. Obviously the coma test makes requiring "good" positive actions impossible, but it also makes it impossible for inaction to be virtuous (so you aren't virtuous just by not raping).
Would virtuous behavior be the fulfillment of preferences without violating anyone else's preferences? Or voluntarily fulfilling the preferences of another over one's own preferences?
I feel that the number of suicides relative to overall population, and the fact that life is a prerequisite for all values, excluding death, could/would influence whether an action of the nature explained in the "Agreement to use..." section (12:00-ish) could/would be "reasonable" to take.
If we outlaw murder because of UPB, then how is that any different from the state outlawing murder because of the LAW (which may, conceivably, be an expression of UPB)?
T'was never implied that we OUTLAW... (as in coercive state monopoly on the provision of law)
How would individuals prevent non-preferable actions? Ostracism, retaliation, competing provision of law that does action X to individuals who murder, or prevents individuals from murdering?
Ostracism, retaliation, or performing an action against individuals who murder, are all coercive. So we don't get around the use of force or coercion.
I wasn't sure about the word "ostracism". Does it usually include force? If it's only a refusal to interact/cooperate, it's not coercion. People deciding to ignore you, maybe let you starve because you've done something they don't like, is not coercion or force.
Force isn't inherently wrong, just unapproved force initiated against a person or his property. Most people interact using this principle. The state being an exception. Behavior breeds behavior. An eye for an eye, is OK with me.
Here we go again... Just because one can contrive a logically self-consistent theory that may even, in some instances, apply to some, or even a majority of situations in one's current "reality", why does it then follow that one then OUGHT TO use this theory to govern one's behavior or thinking? Simply because it is logically self-consistent? Methinks not. You don't get to do that without a preference. Which is fine. But it's personal and not universal and objective!
anonymouse27 9 months ago
@anonymouse27 "why does it then follow that one then OUGHT TO use this theory to govern one's behavior or thinking?"
UPB is optional. The fact that truth is universally preferable to falsehood means you ought to do it. You're not forced to.
"Simply because it is logically self-consistent?"
Not at all.
"You don't get to do that without a preference."
You're telling people what they should not do. You're already accepting that truth is universally preferable to falsehood.
shlockofgod 1 month ago
What does UPB say in the debate of active and passive euthanasia. Is it not universally preferable to humanely kill someone that is in miserable pain and who asks to die, or does UPB's intolerance of initiating violence forbid this killing? It's for my ethics course and I'm still an amateur at UPB, so any takers?
rangaman94 10 months ago
Morals.. If you piss off enough people, it's not good for you.
Conscience.
Logical inconsistencies don't go well with the brain for some. One feels bad because one has to keep up lies and remember lies to get away with it, and in the end one realizes it's a lot more stress free to remain truthful than lie, and getting caught of lying harms the individuals emotions and credibility. Lie too much, and it's not good for you.
You can justify any action to yourself if youre skilled enough.
Kan2209 1 year ago
What a complicated and redundant way to express the human spirit.....i am perplexed
AntiPsychopath 1 year ago
You imply that claims are either universal or opinion. Why? I can deny UPB without making any claim to universality. In fact, as a run-of-the-mill skeptic, my denials tend to be conditional and contextual, rather than universal. I simply say, "this doesn't seem sound given the evidence at hand", not "this can't be true in any context, at any time, given the evidence at hand". This skeptical perspective is fully compatible with and has a long historical relationship to science.
VoltairineCleyre 2 years ago
Is it universally preferable to dismiss theories that don't seem sounds, given the evidence? If so, then that's UPB. If not, then it's just an opinion, and thus you don't have an objective way to say oppose someone who asserts UPB. Does that make sense?
Kawlinz 2 years ago
>Is it universally preferable to dismiss theories that don't seem sound, given the evidence?
There is no skeptical answer to this. The scope is far too broad to be substantiated with sufficient evidence, so the attempted rhetorical trap can't spring. Yes, skeptics work from the premise that theories should be well grounded in evidence before being conditionally accepted, but this premise has no necessary entailment of claims to universality. Practicality or conditionality are sufficient.
VoltairineCleyre 2 years ago
If "theories should be well grounded in evidence before being conditionally accepted", what is the condition that we should accept evidence?
If practicality is sufficient, then why can I not say that it is practical for me to assert that UPBs exist?
Kawlinz 2 years ago
The conditions for acceptable evidence are varied and change depending on the circumstance. "Conditionally accepted" simply means that the theory may be cast off when conditions change (i.e. evidence is undermined or replaced).
You definitely can assert that it is practical to act as though UPBs exist, but this does not demonstrate their existence. Further, someone could make a counter-claim that assertions of UPB are impractical in a given situation without asserting a UPB in the process.
VoltairineCleyre 2 years ago
I didn't say to act as if UPB exists, let me clarify.
If it is practical for me to assert that UPBs exist *for my argument that UPBs exist*, then why can I not just assert that UPBs exist as a fact?
As well, if assertions of UPB are impractical in a given situation, it should follow that one should not try to apply a UPB to that situation.
Kawlinz 2 years ago
You can assert that UPBs exist, but the practicality of your making such an assertion has no bearing on their actual existence and offers no clear evidence for or against it in and of itself.
I'm happy to accept that UPBs may be applicable to some situations and inapplicable to others, but none of this has any bearing on the assertion that UPB theory cannot be denied without asserting a UPB, which is simply false.
VoltairineCleyre 2 years ago
You dismiss unrealistic situations that object to UPB, then you use a man in a coma as a rule of thumb for rejecting unchosen positive ethical obligations. Since when are coma patient moral creatures? A coma patient is, for all intents and purposes, not a person for the duration of the coma. If someone was born, lived and died in a coma, I doubt anyone would consider them moral creatures in any relevant sense. How can a rock be a means of determining the legitimacy of a moral proposition?
VoltairineCleyre 2 years ago
Its too back judges dont have this understood.Only on Boston Legal but not real life.How does this work I wonder when precedent is established?
gary7999 2 years ago
This is what I'm talking about though. It's surely not a universal objective standard that you can't morally ask a person to commit suicide? If it is, how can it be demonstrated?
It's that very assumption that I'm trying to target here. And I don't really know how UPB, or any other moral system, accounts for this. If it is so, then why is it so? Isn't that essentially a form of egoism, even if one only applies it to this one area of ethics?
Chameleon41 2 years ago
I see. It makes sense as a conclusion, but I'm not really sure that I follow all the logic so far. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I might not be following it properly.
The problem I have is that there is definitely, and very literally, 'choice' involved. But I assume your use of 'choice' is more contextual in terms of morality.
So I'm not really sure why the fact that the choice is between two violent alternatives means that there is no 'moral' choice, or however it should be phrased.
Chameleon41 2 years ago
Well it's a hypothetical, the point of which is to test the outermost extreme of what you said, so no, the only two options are die, or detonate. Another assumption is that (SOMEHOW?!) if you choose to die, the bomb won't be detonated.
I realise this is totally unrealistic, and if you don't want to waste your time thinking about it, then fair enough. But for example, I would like to think that I wouldn't detonate the bomb, but I wonder whether you think it would be morally acceptable to do so.
Chameleon41 2 years ago
When I find myself in times of trouble
Brother Stefan comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom: UPB.
:)
ks100001 2 years ago
Sorry, I realise that this is outwith the context of your discussion, but you don't actually stand by that as a a principle do you?
The only thing a person is being 'forced' to do while at gunpoint is to make a value judgment on his own life. A person who thinks that this situation lacks choice is, logically, one who would always value his own life above the action he is being 'forced' to do.
Extreme example: would you detonate a bomb, killing 10,000 people to save your own life?
Chameleon41 2 years ago
Wow, what a superb video! This has totally changed my view on ethics, for the better I think. Wonderful, I'll have to order a copy of 'UPB'. Very thought-provoking stuff.
L1ber8ted 2 years ago
I would lie. But I don`t like to be lied too so I put foward a value that I accept and refuse at the same time. But you see i'm a human that says I'm not an human. Like a molecule of salt trying to tell me he is water. Because denying my proprieties has an human is a the way I found to avoid ethical argument. I like all your clowns: Confy/ BP2 / D4S inc. You all look in the mirror and refuse to accept your reflexion.
Baabaloux 2 years ago
Don't lump me in the same category as two people that are practically my arch enemies. I don't agree with confederalsocialist's and d4shawn's philosophies. In fact, I find their philosophies disgusting and irrational.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
But you all the same, sorry to tell you that.
Baabaloux 2 years ago
That claim can only be based on your lack of knowledge of our comparative positions.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I would of agree but I saw your last video. I'm not sure WTF you are believe in. Same thing for the others clown. No consistency whatsoever.
Baabaloux 2 years ago
if you don't believe you, why should I?
stefbot 2 years ago
"Liar's paradox", anyone?
brainpolice2 2 years ago
No, it means it can't be universalized, for to make the proposition violates the principle. That's a blatant contradiction and it's also hypocritical and evasive, which is why moral nihilists hate UPB so much, it shows them that they're acting as such. So rather than fess up, they just attack UPB, which is only a methodology.
lukeev 2 years ago
Neither can "never lie" be reasonably universalized without leading to absurd scenarios in certain circumstances. For example, it may actually be in your rational self-interest to lie to a criminal in order to save your life or your friend's life. To require people to never lie as an absolute moral rule is thus absurd in such a circumstance. This was a basic flaw with Kant's ethics, which is basically what UPB is: Kant's ethics restated, without the elaborate theory behind it.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
no one gonna forbid you "lie".
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
?????
brainpolice2 2 years ago
nice response.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
A more obvious example may be if someone is torturing you (and you're innocent) in the attempt to extract information from you that will allow them to do something that is also simultaneously immoral. If you tell the truth, this information will be used to murder someone that is innocent. If you lie, you will stop being tortured and you'll be released. In such a case, I would say that lieing is in fact *the right thing to do* and in your rational self-interest.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
YES ! Watch the video now, because stef explains it.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Well, of course it is. I call it self defence. When someone wants to kill you what you have to do to get out of the situation, or save another, is morally valid. I don't know if Stef, or anyone else agrees with me on this, but from what I understand of UPB, from reading Steffs books, its consistent with his theory. The key here is the childish exclamation "he started it". Its not however good to lie to someone who lies to you if you can get out of the interaction non- violently.
PeterTheEvilBastard 2 years ago
What you can't do with UPB is say "lying is universally preferable". Besides, its explained in the first 6 minutes of the video. Telling the truth is really in the category "aesthetically preferable". Sorry, but I must ask, did you read any of the books? Or see the video?
PeterTheEvilBastard 2 years ago
Well, I reject his definition of morality that places all non-interpersonal questions outside of morality, and would place the question of whether or not you should lie in certain circumstances in the realm of "aesthetics". It is *not* an aesthetic question as to whether or not an innocent person should lie to save their life or their innocent friend's life.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Sure its not. Becouse the question here IS NOT about truth, but about the initiation of violence. Didn't you read what I wrote? Lying to get out of a life threatening situation shifts the focus away from truth and lies to the initiation of violence. Seems pretty common sense to me. There are priorities, you know. and UPB covers it pretty thoroughly, as far as I understand.
PeterTheEvilBastard 2 years ago
Actually it has nothing to do with the initiation of violence. The question is: "ought you or ought not you to lie in situation X?". Morality cannot be simplified to a question about violence.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Dude, its exasperating. We're talking live examples here, right? If someone threatened to kill you, would you REALLY give a fuck about being truthfull to him? No, becouse the focus here is violence, and you lying is just a response to him trying to skewer you with a pencil or something. The same as in physical self defence. Using violence in physical self defence is moral according to UPB and anyone with even half a brain. WATCH the effing video!
PeterTheEvilBastard 2 years ago
You're missing my point, which is that morality cannot be reduced to nothing more than questions about physical violence. That is a narrow definition of morality.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Crap, I take that back, Stef does agree with this, its in the vid. I wrote the comment while watching, sorry about that :)
PeterTheEvilBastard 2 years ago
Could you please give us an ethical premise than can be universalized?
**Crosses fingers for NAP**
Minskyan 2 years ago
This vid has drawn the trolls back out of their caves!
mcphilthy 2 years ago
Not trolls, but worse. Ethical nihilists.
DestroytheNWO1776 2 years ago
Indeed. The most absurd and blatantly contradictory philosophical position I think one could ever take.
lukeev 2 years ago
Please explain why moral nihilism is contradictory.
Minskyan 2 years ago
I'm not an ethical nihilist. In fact, one of my premises is that Stefbot is an ethical nihilist without realizing it.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Stefan is well aware that objective morality does not exist. I asked him this directly in his chatroom after a slow discussion with a couple of FDR members who claimed that this was not the case.
Instead, Stefan attempts to manufacture a morality based on several key principles, which many peoples' morality lack. I think of it as a kind of "Well if we're going to do this ethics thing, we may as well do it right" position.
Chameleon41 2 years ago
Excellent! In the first two minutes you had already cleared up two of the biggest points of confusion from the UPB book. A second edition seems justified.
odigity 2 years ago
Brilliant.
lukeev 2 years ago
Thank you so much for solving various lifeboat scenarios.
TheEfkk 2 years ago
I heard an interesting statistic on the radio the other day, and that was " the most non returned books in university libraries are books on ethics and the higher you go in the realm of ethics books the less likely they are to be returned. interesting eh, a real study it was too, sry i can't be bothered foot note it.
believe at your peril ( :
muzzleray 2 years ago
Is UPB similar to the golden rule?
steshaw71 2 years ago
It is similar to Kant's meta-ethical theory, in that it reduces to a universality test for moral propositions or moral systems.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Thanks I'm not familiar with it - not a philosopher unfortunately. I'll try to check it out online.
It's also seems related to the Unanimity Principle. Or at least rather than utilitarian - which is often referred to as the greatest happiness for the greatest number (but which is also defined as increasing the sum of all happiness) - something which I am unsure has a name, the greatest happiness for all. i.e. each and every individual.
steshaw71 2 years ago
5:08, I heard a knock at the door! Don't think you can get away with slacking off Stef!
drew335533 2 years ago
Even if you CAN get an ought from an is ethics would essentially be an invisible pink unicorn. They COULD exist but you have no way to know whether they are true or not.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
That's like saying you can't prove something scientific as true because science uses inductive rather than deductive reasoning.
Do you see it differently?
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
"Proving" ethical theories is not even remotely the same as inductive reasoning in science.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
All ethical theories require either untestable or absurd assumptions. Stef's assumptions are
1)Moral rules should be universal.
2)There should not be radically different sets of moral rules of certain groups of people. Everyone should be subject to the same rules.
Though my deep down feelings align with these great ideas they do not appeal to my logical mind. Logic would beg me not to have blind faith in these assumptions. Mere assumptions is not a great basis to be proving something.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
"Ethics" is just an arbitrary set of rules made up by Stefan. The rules aren't actually derived from anything.
You can certainly say that an "ethical" action must be something that everybody can do simultaneouly, but that's just a description (not a prescription). You can't explain WHY people SHOULD only do things that can hypothetically be done by everybody simultaneously.
There is no reason. It's just an arbitrary rule that Stefan came up with to rationalize his personal preferences.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
Stef must have be brainwashed, because it sounds like you're saying that I should believe what you're saying, even though you're saying there is no reason I should believe what you're saying.
Are you just coming up with arbitrary rules based on your own preferences, or is there some reason I should accept what you're saying as true?
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
"it sounds like you're saying that I should believe what you're saying, even though you're saying there is no reason I should believe what you're saying."
If that's how it sounds to you, then you need to clean out your ears and re-read what I've said.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago 2
I've never said that you should or shouldn't do anything.
At this point, you are clearly just making stuff up.
Whether or not you have an interest in "the truth" (valid logic) is up to you. If you don't have an interest in valid logic, then there's no point in this discussion.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
I guess we need to establish whether or not we both share an interest in "truth" (i.e. logic). I just assumed that you did since you were engaged in this discussion on this thread. If you're not interested in logic (and it's valid application), then there is no reason you should listen to anything I say. If you are interested in logic and reason, then let me know, and we will continue our discussion.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
I'm trying to derive a principle from what you are saying.
For example, if you said we should all go out beating up old people, I'd say, so you believe in the initiation of violence against old people. That's not what you said, but that's the principle I derived from what you said.
If you say I shouldn't listen to what Stefan says because he's just putting forth his preferences, you're saying that I should listen to what you're saying, but not because you're just putting forth your preferences
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
"if you said we should all go out beating up old people"
You are totally straw manning me dude.
I have said over and over again that "shoulds" (or "oughts") can only be logically derived from "ifs".
This hypothetical example of something I might say, is completely contrary to my own stated opinion.
OF COURSE you can prove me wrong if you put words in my mouth that I don't believe or would never say.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago 2
Huh? I put forth a random assertion in order to analogize what extracting a principle from a statement would look like.
Anyway, it sounds like you're just responding to the video and not the theory in its entirety, which could be why it may sound like I'm putting words in your mouth. Have you read the book UPB?
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
Ok, let's back up.
Assuming you ARE interested in valid logic and "truth", then the reason you should listen to me, is because I'm right, and Stefan is wrong.
Does that answer your question?
Do you NOT care whether an argument is valid or not?
I don't know why you keep asking me why you should care whether or not logic (or an argument) is valid.
Either you do or you don't.
I guess you're trying to trick me into saying you SHOULD value logic and valid arguments, but I'm not going to.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago 2
I'm not trying to trick you into anything.
You accept logic, which is a preference. I accept logic. Therefore, we should accept that which is logical.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
No disagreement there.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
Great. So tell me if you can see a problem in this reasoning.
I prefer logic. Violence cannot be used to prove a statement logically. Therefore, if I want to be logical, I ought not use violence in an attempt to prove a statement logically.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
Well yeah... but that's like saying that mustard can't be used to fuel a car. It's true, but what's the point in bringing it up? Nobody thinks otherwise.
Violence can not prove a statement logically anymore than it can solve a math problem or paint a picture.
Jogging can't solve an equation either.
Eating, won't make it rain.
Etc...
goodwithgirls 2 years ago 2
I beg to differ that no one brings up otherwise.
Many problems of the world are attempted to be solved using violence as are many statements justified with the use of violence. Government being the main example.
Violence necessarily ends a debate, since at no point is violence ever established as a valid form of debating.
If you used mustard or jogging, I'd tell you the same thing. There is a valid way to debate. If you prefer logic, you must ___. (Prescription from description)
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
"I have said over and over again that "shoulds" (or "oughts") can only be logically derived from "ifs"."
Why? You can derive oughts from anything. So you're using an ought already. For example; "I like cheese, therefore I ought to watch TV."
If one says there's something wrong with this, then it's invoking an ought. It's a correction. If we say it's illogical, we're saying I *ought* to accept logic, universality etc. That's UPB. Everyone is already using oughts, all the time, that's the thing!
lukeev 2 years ago
"I like cheese, therefore I ought to watch TV."
That's a non sequitur. There is no logical connection.
No one is saying that you "ought" to accept logic. Stop using that straw man please.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
So here, 'logical connection' is universally preferable for correcting people's thoughts and behaviour. Great! That's UPB. Thanks for clearing it up.
lukeev 2 years ago
Again, you are straw manning me. I am not PRESCRIBING logic.
You're simply playing a game where you refuse to acknowledge the difference between description and prescription. Just because I DESCRIBE something (i.e. logic), doesn't mean I am PRESCRIBING something.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
Is it REALLY that hard to understand the difference between the following two statements:
a) X is illogical.
b) One should accept logic.
For one thing, one is descriptive, while the other is prescriptive.
For another thing, one is a matter of epistemology, while the other is a matter of ethics.
NEWS FLASH: You can not derive an "ought" from an "is".
Just because something IS logical, DOES NOT MEAN that you SHOULD accept it.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
So why/how are you correcting me? It's a massive, epic contradiction. If there is no valid ought, then why change my mind? You can derive an ought any time you like, for any reason. 'Cannot' simply means 'ought not' since there is no physical law which is stopping me. If there is no physical law preventing me oughts, then is/ought is getting an ought. Thus the magical is/ought "dichotomy" contradicts itself. You also assume logic/reason/truth is *universally* preferable when correcting me.
lukeev 2 years ago
lukeev:
You seem to be having difficulty telling the difference between an observation (description) and a prescription.
See if you can understand the difference between these two statements:
a) The dog has no food.
b) You should feed the dog.
The 1st statement is an observation, and a matter of epistemology/fact.
The 2nd, is a prescription, and a matter of ethics/opinion.
Are you with me? Do you acknowledge the difference between DESCRIPTION and PRESCRIPTION (epistemology and ethics)?
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
lukeev: I am ASSUMING that you ALREADY have a personal preference for valid logic (as opposed to invalid logic).
The reason I have made that assumption, is because we are having this discussion, and usually that means somebody is interested in logic and logical debate.
We shouldn't have to start out every debate by establishing whether or not we both share an interest in the valid application of logic. That should be a given. It would be really obnoxious to have to do that with every person.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
He's not saying that you're prescribing logic. He's saying that you're prescribing a correction that he ought follow if he prefers logic.
Every time you correct someone, you're prescribing universally preferable behavior. That something is illogical is not just your preference. It's a universal prescription.
You contradict yourself if you say you're not offering prescriptions for correcting his behavior, since the act of correction is a prescription for his behavior.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
"If you say I shouldn't listen to what Stefan says because he's just putting forth his preferences, you're saying that I should listen to what you're saying, but not because you're just putting forth your preferences"
Haha brilliant :)
lukeev 2 years ago
So there must be some reason as to why I should accept what you're saying. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter what you say.
The reason I should accept it is because I do accept logic. Therefore I am obligated to accept it. So, "I accept logic" is a premise. If my preference for logic becomes to accept logical conclusions, then why cannot other preferences be premises or conclusions to which we must apply logic in order to maintain consistency?
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
*becomes an obligation to accept logical conclusions
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
"If my preference for logic ..."
Your preference for logic acts as the "if" from which you can derive "oughts".
Another example would be your preferences to stay dry, from which you can conclude that you ought to wear a raincoat out in the rain.
"Oughts" can be derived from "ifs".
That's it. It's really not complicated.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
In case you can't see it, I responded in the middle of this thread.
But yeah, I don't disagree with you. But here we have a preference that takes the place of a premise in order to draw a logical conclusion. So, you're not denying that preferences can be used to draw logical conclusions..
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
I'm not denying the existence of pragmatism. If you have a preference for something, then there are ways of accomplishing that thing that are effective, and ways that are not.
If you want to cook a turkey, putting it in the freezer won't work.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
Nobody denies the existence of pragmatism ("oughts" from "ifs"). Not Hume, not me, not anybody else.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
"If" or "since".
Moragauth 2 years ago
And what am I saying anyway? Ethics do not exist in reality so there is nothing to "prove". Just because you point out that an ethical theory is logically consistent doesn't prove it is true. Logically consistency is not proof of existence.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
"Ethics" don't exist in reality. They aren't made of matter or energy. But, "actions" are an effect of matter and thus exist in reality.
"Ethics" are simply theories that we use to describe human actions involving the use of force. Just as if we want to accurately describe the motion of the planets we must put forward a logically consistent scientific theory, if we want to accurately describe human actions involving the use of force, we must put forward a logically consistent ethical theory.
nexalacer 2 years ago
Scientific theories are descriptive. Ethical theories are not.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago 2
A simple search on wikipedia provides two types of ethical theories, descriptive and normative. UPB does not proscribe any ethical theories, rather we can use it to analyze ethical theories that human beings describe.
So to pull an example for the wiki article, Europeans believe it's wrong to leave babies in the snow. Inuit don't believe it's wrong. We can use UPB to determine which description is consistent.
Whether or not people agree with that consistency is irrelevant.
nexalacer 2 years ago
"UPB does not proscribe any ethical theories"
Yes it does. It assumes two things
1)Moral rules should be universal.
2)Everyone should be subject to the same moral rules regardless of their clothing, badges, etc.
3)Moral rules which appeal to 1) and 2) are logically consistent and are therefore true.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
"Europeans believe it's wrong to leave babies in the snow. Inuit don't believe it's wrong."
UPB then, is a measure of how good someone's excuse (justification for an action) is.
If I simply say, "Leaving babies in the snow is neither wrong nor right, it is simply an effective method of population/birth control", then suddenly, my justification doesn't suffer from any logical flaws, and thus the action is justifiable.
Ethics (UPB) then, is totally pointless.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
No, you cannot use UPB to favor either position over the other, only to show that they aren't consistent with eachother. But it gives us no basis to each either position over the other. Consistency by itself tells us nothing about the actual validity of a given principle. It only tells us if our principles contradict eachother, but not if our principles are valid or not in and of themselves. In this way, UPB actually does not function to justify or unjustify any particular ethical premise.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
For example, my ethical principle can be "the initiation of violence is moral". While UPB can catch me in a contradiction if another premise of mine which entails that "the initiation of violence is not moral", the revelation of the fact that "the initiation of violence is moral" contradicts "the initiation of violence is not moral" does not constitute a proof or disproof of either premise. In short, UPB gives us no reason to favor either side of the binary. It can only reveal hypocrisy.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
UPB can, through binary logic, demonstrate when either (1) ethical proposition A contradicts ethical proposition B or (2) an ethical proposition contradicts the behavior of its proponent. But the fact that A contradicts B isn't a proof or disproof of either A or B unless we assume the validity of one side of the binary already, and personal hypocrisy is irrelevant. UPB doesn't tell us anything that we did not already know and fails to justify or invalidate any particular ethical proposition.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
And hypocrisy reveal us that...
Baabaloux 2 years ago
Someone's hypocrisy does not constitute a disproof of their premises. If I claim that initiating violence is wrong and proceed to attack you, that doesn't disprove the premise that initiating violence is wrong. If I claim that initiating violence is moral and never attack anyone ever, that doesn't disprove the premise that initiating violence is right. In this way, UPB doesn't provide any basis to evaluate moral propositions on their own merits.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
The same goes for an internal contradiction between someone's premises. If someone believes that initiating violence is wrong but supports the state, yes, this is an inconcistency in their position. However, the revelation of this fact by itself does not constitute a proof or disproof of either non-aggression or statism as principles. It only reveals cognitive dissonance, assuming the validity of one of the premises in the first place.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
You want absolutes, but UPB can not give you absolutes, so you are angry that there is not absolute morality... :D haha. Funny. get back to the practice.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
No, I'm rejecting absolutism in the sense that UPB claims to be defining morality in such terms in the first place. Not a problem with me, it's a flaw with Kantian universalism in the first place.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
remember, he is *absolutely* rejecting absolutism! :)
stefbot 2 years ago
Yes, a classic sleight of hand. Except by "absolutism" I mean "a moral principle that applies regaurdless of circumstances or consequences or context, and that is supposed to be justified categorically without respect to its relation to other values". I am not using an "absolutist" basis to reject that kind of "absolutism", it is simply a rejection of a rather Kantian, deontological definition of morality.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Let's use "property rights" as an example. I reject "absolutist property rights" in the following sense: my moral theory says that it is morally permissible and in the rational self-interest of the guy who is hanging from the flagpole in the flagpole scenario to break the window. In this sense, I don't view "property rights" as absolute, since in such circumstances I side with the preservation of one's life. This also actually provides a solution to lifeboat scenarios, rather than dismissing em.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
@stefbot lol
schismatized 1 year ago
What I meant, was that you want be 100 percent sure, that something is true, but science do NOT work that way. I keep in mind scientific method here. You can be 100 sure only in mathematics, as fas as I know.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
You seem to try very hard to find a force that will make people act. Hypocricys isn`t a disproof UPB either. It likes saying someone not believing that gun can kill disprove its danger. The contradiction give us a start to see if it even applicable as universal ethic. Later, you come up with emperical evidences to support your ethic. But you seem to just forget what was said in the video and continue with your own pre-concived ideas instead of understanding what was put forward.
Baabaloux 2 years ago
What you seem to be missing is the fact that literally ANY ethical premise can be "validated" by UPB as a universal ethic, so long as one doesn't simultaneously have another premise that contradicts it and so long as one acts in accordance with it. It literally completely avoids the task of moral philosophy, which is to function as a guide for what we "ought" or "ought not" to do. It doesn't tell us that, nor does it provided a basis for choosing any particular principle over another.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Freaking dishonest bastard. Keep playing dumb motherfucker.
Baabaloux 2 years ago
I'm not playing dumb, I'm pointing out a fundamental flaw with UPB, which I have already put foreward months ago.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Yes and creationists did prove fundamental flaws in the Big Bag with their proof agains the theory of evolution.
Baabaloux 2 years ago
UPB is not analogous to big bang theory.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
that's right, it is not a sitcom...
stefbot 2 years ago
To be fair it does have an "All in the family" ring to it :)
DCLugi 2 years ago
No shit sherlock
Baabaloux 2 years ago
Realistically; you had one discussion with Stef where you just agreed, then you acted like a coward & troll and attacked him *afterwards* in a blog post likely because 1) you know your 'arguments' don't stand up to scrutiny especially when you actually have to debate live and 2) you know that arguing against UPB uses UPB & it annoys you, because it means you should actually put ethics into practice rather than continuing to engage in pointless intellectual masturbation for the rest of your life.
lukeev 2 years ago
Actually I persistently disagreed, but Stefbot kept shifting the discussion away from what I was talking about and didn't address any of my points directly.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
No, you are projecting
Baabaloux 2 years ago
Hardly.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Nor does it try to. I'm convinced you've not actually read the book, but it simply causes you anxiety and you'd rather prove someone wrong than seek the truth.
lukeev 2 years ago
Actions have consequences. That's it.
Whether one should or shouldn't do something depends entirely upon whether that thing achieves a desired goal.
What ethicist try to do, are pretend there are consequences when there are none.
Stef believes that people should only do things that everybody could hypothetically do all at the same time. Why? There's absolutely no reason at all for me to adhere to such a bizarre parameter, that has no consequences in reality.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago 3
You might just as well not do something because God (or Zeus) doesn't want you to.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
Except all people actually exist meaning it's based on an actuality. Zeus and friends are not real. If someone said "Zeus wants people to only do things that all can do at the same time" then you may adhere to it because it's consistent but not because it's from The Z-man.
DCLugi 2 years ago
Well, in this sense, UPB is just Kant's meta-ethics for libertarians.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
A Kantian would argue something along these lines: murder is wrong because if the principle of murder were universalized, everyone would kill eachother off and noone would be left. Of course, this is a rather superficial argument and it inherently has to sneak a consequentialist premise into the mix. A Kantian may argue along these lines: murder is wrong because it is inconsistent for you to claim a right not to be murdered while claiming a right to murder. I've explained why this is inadequate.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Saying that UPB is invalid is not the same thing as saying "It is universally preferable to deny theories that are invalid". That is non sequitor. The only thing you can conclude is
1)I found it preferable to deny your theory.
2)I find it preferable that everyone else accepts my criticism of your theory.
Though I may personally believe that denying invalid theories is a universally good thing I cannot possible say that everyone believes this. I can only conclude what I said above.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
I generally consider myself a fairly bright person, but found this video to be way over my head. It has inspired me to take a phil course on ethics so that I may comment more intelligently on the subject.
For what it's worth coming from one who is woefully undereducated on the subject, however, I enjoyed the video ^_^
lolnetsephy 2 years ago
Here's my theory:
Assuming they want or have reason to, people should murder, when they can get away with it.
Let's see someone try to "invalidate" that theory.
SHAWNONOMICS 2 years ago 3
is that you reignofrad?
DertBagg 2 years ago
The word you are looking for is 'will' not 'should,' and so it is not UPB. :)
stefbot 2 years ago
Is this correct:
For something to be UPB, it can't be something that some people already do (like kill)?
Would that also hold true for something like NOT killing?
Does something have to be impossible in order to be UPB?
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
Stef, I thought you clarified that the P was "preferable," not "preferred," which sounded to me like should, not will.
From your video: "it doesn't empirically describe what people already prefer, but a theoretical examination of what people should prefer universally."
But you say that Shawnonomics is supposed to use "will" and not "should." I am confused.
DertBagg 2 years ago
Hmmmmmmmm, I'm not entirely sure.
drew335533 2 years ago
Someone needs to get Stef some ice cream. I've got a theory, based on sound observation, that he likes it.
We have to try as many flavors as possible, so we can narrow down what TYPE of ice cream he likes, as well as to validate that he does, indeed, like ice cream.
caltrop69 2 years ago
1) You can't get an "ought" from an "is".
2) ?????
3) You can!!
WTF?!
"'oughts' do not exist in reality, therefore we ought not to say they do"... From where did you pull the second ought?
Seriously, where in the description is implied the prescription?
I may be deluded, but I think I'm good at analyzing abstract ideas, and if you had something there I think I'd see it.
Could you be a little more specific?
bobbincygna 2 years ago 4
The question is, why are we obligated to accept such a statement as true?
It's Kant's hypothetical imperative: If we accept the premises by which we are able to make any statement, then we must accept its conclusions.
You can't get an ought from an is is a logical statement that, if we accept its premises, we ought accept it as a conclusion. But like he said, it's getting an ought from an "is not."
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
That's a complete contradiction.
If we can't (logically) derive an "ought" from an "is", then there is no "ought" that can be derived from that fact.
You are contradicting the premise; not adhering to it.
SHAWNONOMICS 2 years ago 3
"You can't get an ought from an is" is a conclusion, not a premise--which is what you appear to be saying. The principles of logic are the premises, and anyone who adheres to logic obligate themselves to accept logical conclusions, and otherwise contradict themselves if they do not accept logical conclusions.
That probably wasn't clear from my previous post.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
We could say it like this:
By employing the rules of logic, we can determine that there is no way to logically derive an "ought" from an "is".
HOWEVER, we CAN derive an "ought" from an "if".
Therefor, IF we want to employ and adhere to the rules of logic, then we must acknowledge that an "ought" can not be logically derived from an "is".
goodwithgirls 2 years ago 2
> If we can't (logically) derive an "ought" from an "is", then there is no "ought" that can be derived from that fact.
so?
bobbincygna 2 years ago
Are you asking me what the ramifications of the "is/ought dichotomy" are?
Well... many people here seem to think that "oughts" can just be arbitrarily derived from nothing, or exist without reference to a particular goal or preference.
For example, it does not logically follow, that because the dog has no food, you should feed the dog.
In order to determine whether or not you should feed the dog, a GOAL (an "if") must be identified.
IF you want the dog to starve, THEN you shouldn't feed it.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
bobbincygna 2 years ago
You will be instantly struck by lightening if you lie or are mistaken. The "ought" is derived from that FACT of nature.
SHAWNONOMICS 2 years ago
Wow Stef. You just showed Hume the door.
Rokasomee 2 years ago
No he didn't.
Stef has no way (aside from arbitrarily) to get an "ought" from an "is". It can't be done.
And please don't refer to pragmatism ("oughts" from "ifs") as a counter-argument, because you would be straw manning Hume.
Hume knew full well that IF he want to go out the door, he OUGHT to open it first.
SHAWNONOMICS 2 years ago 2
By commenting here, I'm saying it's universally preferable to comment on videos. Because of logic.
EdwardMandellHouse 2 years ago
I'm not sure what that means, but here's what I do know:
a) If you want to comment upon this video, posting a comment here is an effective way of doing that.
b) Whether or not someone wants to comment upon this video is an issue of personal preference.
Thus, we have the two things that people often refer to as "ethics": pragmatism and personal preference. That is all "ethics" is or ever can be (preference+pragmatism).
SHAWNONOMICS 2 years ago
I don't just like the philisophical goodies i love them!
gosmokesome 2 years ago
Stef
one of your best.
harryogre 2 years ago
Obviously, a statist will then say: "AHA! Almost everyone consents to taxation (or conscription or what have you) when asked after the fact, so it is reasonable for us to take half of your pay."
On top of that, I'm sure they would follow it up with a maniacal laugh while their friend is pulling your pants down for you.
erhnamdj 2 years ago
Hi Stef! I got a question!
I was wondering if you had any new thoughts on what virtuous behavior is in UPB. Obviously the coma test makes requiring "good" positive actions impossible, but it also makes it impossible for inaction to be virtuous (so you aren't virtuous just by not raping).
Would virtuous behavior be the fulfillment of preferences without violating anyone else's preferences? Or voluntarily fulfilling the preferences of another over one's own preferences?
Great vid as always!
Stargazer5781 2 years ago
I feel that the number of suicides relative to overall population, and the fact that life is a prerequisite for all values, excluding death, could/would influence whether an action of the nature explained in the "Agreement to use..." section (12:00-ish) could/would be "reasonable" to take.
gn0m1k 2 years ago
but what if space aliens wiped out all of humanity and there was only one female and one male on earth and the female didn't want to have a kid?
therefore upb fails
McDicker96 2 years ago
U saying it be universally preferable behavior that to not be believing in da UPB homie?
gosmokesome 2 years ago
Humanity is not a victim. No one to hurt anymore.
Baabaloux 2 years ago
Yes, doctor I realize that your hamster is limping but what about all of the dying people with the coughing up the blood and limbs dropping off?
DCLugi 2 years ago
Thank you. I really appreciate your videos. Excellent format and I am learning a lot from you. Thanks for posting. RJ
TripperLV 2 years ago
If we outlaw murder because of UPB, then how is that any different from the state outlawing murder because of the LAW (which may, conceivably, be an expression of UPB)?
KevinSolway 2 years ago
T'was never implied that we OUTLAW... (as in coercive state monopoly on the provision of law)
How would individuals prevent non-preferable actions? Ostracism, retaliation, competing provision of law that does action X to individuals who murder, or prevents individuals from murdering?
gn0m1k 2 years ago
Ostracism, retaliation, or performing an action against individuals who murder, are all coercive. So we don't get around the use of force or coercion.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
I wasn't sure about the word "ostracism". Does it usually include force? If it's only a refusal to interact/cooperate, it's not coercion. People deciding to ignore you, maybe let you starve because you've done something they don't like, is not coercion or force.
Force isn't inherently wrong, just unapproved force initiated against a person or his property. Most people interact using this principle. The state being an exception. Behavior breeds behavior. An eye for an eye, is OK with me.
fleskebille