rhanson

Regarding my original post... I just realized that I did notexplain UPB at all. I’m using the UPB framework to evaluate a moral theory(the non-aggression principle), but I’m not actually describing UPB itself. Itjust clicked for me that UPB is a methodology for validating moral theories andnot a moral theory itself. I’m sorry if this caused any confusion.

That's an interesting point. I haven't really thought about it. Perhaps I am using the term "prefer" incorrectly. If it is incorrect, could I say "No one can prefer to be raped over any other voluntary interaction"? Or is that comparing something to not something still? Is there a reason I can't prefer something to not something? Forgive me if I'm being dense, I haven't considered this before.

A friend of mine uses a very similar explanation of UPB as the one I put above, but before he ever touches the actual argument he defines his terms. Once they reach an agreement on definitions, only then will he make the case for UPB. I think that sounds like an excellent approach, and he says he's had some success with that method.

I’ve been trying really hard to simplify and explain UPB ina way that makes sense to more people. I’ve had some luck with the belowexplanation. I feel it is a more concise way to explain UPB without having toget into the whole “I prefer truth over falsehood” thing that seems to be whatthis conversation always turns in to. But is this an accurate way to explainUPB? I have a preference to not be raped. This preference to notbe raped can be universalized because rape, by its definition, requires anunwilling victim. (If there isn’t an unwilling victim, then it would cease tobe rape and would be a voluntary interaction of some sort.) No one can prefer to be raped because a person cannot bewilling to be unwilling. A person cannot be something and its opposite at thesame time. This would be a contradiction. Notice that I don’t have to know the preferences of everyperson in the universe to make this a universal preference. I only have to spotthe contradiction. “To not be raped” is a universal, objective preference andit applies to all human beings, in all places, and at all times. The same canbe said for murder, assault, theft, and fraud. None of these things can be preferredbecause a preference for them would break their definition, and createcontradictions.

Yep, that's it! Thank you so much! You are awesome.

Could someone help me find a video? I'm almost positive it was recent, perhaps uploaded within the last 3 weeks. (Pretty sure it was a beardy Stef.) I can't remember for the life of me what the subject of the video was, but there was a small part of it that really stuck out at me. Stef talked about the importance of rituals and the role they play in the subconscious mind. I think he said something about symbols being the language of the subconscious. I wish I could elaborate more, but that seems to be all I remember. He wasn't on the subject very long, and I think he starts talking about it within the last 2/3rds of the video. I just can't find it anywhere! If someone could help me locate which video it's in I would be very grateful! Thanks!