[Is my concise explanation of UPB accurate?]

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.

[Is my concise explanation of UPB accurate?]

 

When you say "prefer", aren't you forgetting something? 'Prefer' makes sense only in comparison to something, as in, I prefer X over Y. I think if you just say it like "I prefer X" you might be using the wrong word, so to speak. "I prefer vanilla icecream" doesn't make much sense, unless you also say against what you're measuring it. Chocolate icecream? Dog food?

And couldn't someone for example claim, "I prefer being raped to being killed"? Or, better rape me than hurt my children, if someone puts them in such a position? It's not a voluntary choice either way, btw. but you could still prefer one thing over another, no?

I'm guessing your answer will be, sure, what you mean is, nobody can prefer being raped to not being raped. Is that the implication here? Then you're not really talking about preferring one thing over another, but non-action over action, or something and not something. You can say "I prefer vanilla ice to no vanilla ice" comparing it to nothing, but does that make sense? What is the thing you're preferring vanilla icecream over?

 

 

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.

[Is my concise explanation of UPB accurate?]

 

It is accurate but I still see a long, drawn out discussion over the definitions of words. And frankly, that just can't be avoided.

 

 

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.

[Is my concise explanation of UPB accurate?]

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.

[Such a great video, but I can't remember which one it was!]

Yep, that's it!

Thank you so much!

You are awesome.

[Such a great video, but I can't remember which one it was!]

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!