cynicist

Well if you are going to argue that math/science are not fact based and therefore objective, then I understand why you are having trouble with UPB/morality, but I'm not sure that I can help you. Like I said earlier it would be a good idea for you to go back to the basics and study epistemology before trying to tackle some of the more advanced topics like ethics. The videos I linked earlier by Stefan should help with this.

So your argument is that they are subjective? That math and science are just opinions rather than facts?

No, it doesn't. Whether being good or not is your goal does not change whether or not it is objective. A table has no capacity to be good or bad because a table cannot act freely. You are confusing the adjective good, which describes the desirability of something, with the noun good, which refers to that which is morally righteous. So the scientific method or math are not objective then, since they are not natural law or matter, and they are concepts that wouldn't exist without the human mind. You may want to rewatch Stefan's Introduction to Philosophy Series in order to refresh yourself, as it does a very good job of covering this stuff. In fact I'm about to watch it again soon.

No, it's not relative. If being good was relative there would be no such thing as morality because good would be an opinion. Morality is intrinsically objective since you are talking about principles that apply in a universal way.

Definition 5 is correct. Number 4 is close but "what is" might be mistaken to mean that the preference is always acted upon. Someone might have a desire to learn the truth and choose to pray for divine inspiration even though they should be using the scientific method. Very. It took me quite a while to see what he was saying. I think I was trying to overcomplicate it the first few times hehe.

I'm not sure a therapist can help you with this, maybe I'm wrong but I went through something similar due to a controlling mother that would not allow me to disagree with her on anything. I grew up being persuaded this way and that by people who sounded convincing and would feel devastated when someone with the opposing belief spoke of it with grand certainty. The problem was I didn't really know how to tell who was right and who was wrong. Epistemology is the key. Check out Stefan's Intro to Philosophy Series. Go through the parts about truth and reality and question them. Compare it with everything else you can find about how to know the truth and once you find the answer you will not have to feel insecure again, because anytime you see a new video from Stefan or anyone else you can use your method of determining the truth in order to test what they are saying for yourself. Without this tool you will resort to what you learned from your family: That you aren't allowed to think for yourself. On second thought maybe therapy is a good idea. I'm just going to translate from the parents in your head to what actually happened in reality: "I have been throughout my life a follower and very impressionable" = "I have been throughout my life forced to follow and had my critical thinking skills opposed" "When I was young I was not necessarily encouraged to have my own beliefs" = "When I was young my parents did not allow me to have my own beliefs" "I was always a very shy person" = "I was attacked as a child and as a result I fear other people" "This led me to latch on to anything that my parents believed in" = "This opposition of me as a human being led me to adopt my parents beliefs in an act of self-preservation"

Haha good final blog post, I'm pretty sure you covered all the reasons I never attempted to do it.

None of those. UPB = objectively required, as in, "If you want to live, it is universally preferable not to hang yourself with a noose"

So if I come across an article with an argument that something is true, and the author begins his argument by contradicting his own premise, (thereby invalidating it) I am both arrogant and careless for choosing not to continue reading it?

Excellent point (would have upvoted but I'm out of points ). I was very susceptible to this myself until two things happened for me: I internalized the principles required to establish truth, and I practiced using them. Once I accepted correction as a good thing, I was less prone to panic following the realization that I was wrong about something. I keep my standards for accepting new facts high, but when I can't find a flaw in the argumentation or evidence for an idea I accept it until the day it is proven to be incorrect. The only things I will never concede are the fundamentals of self-ownership, evidence of the senses, and logic, since without those things knowledge is impossible. Ever since I found those principles I've felt anchored and safe in exploring new ideas even when they are vastly different, since I'm no longer emotionally chained to any specific one. On the other side of that line the experience is pretty terrifying, I remember contradictory ideas used to make me feel like I was out in a dark ocean, about to have my identity sucked into some nightmarish abyss.

I know what that feels like (both the neglect and feeling like I had a lot to offer the world) and I'm happy to welcome you to the board. You aren't crazy, you were right the whole fucking time lol. All the doubts you might have had when you were younger because people told you that you were wrong or didn't agree with anything you said, you were right. They didn't know any better than you despite their age and certainty in their beliefs. I know how important it is to realize that. And don't feel bad about subscriptions or anything. Take your time and absorb and you will donate when you feel the desire to do so, otherwise you risk guilting yourself through "shoulds" which is the opposite of what this convo is about.

Morality means the principles which distinguish between right and wrong. In other words, it doesn't mean goodness or being good, it means the principles that make you good. It's a subtle distinction but yes, if you don't desire to be a good person then it is a pointless task. To fix your analogy, it would be like saying: "If my goal is to peel potatoes, then I should cut them in this particular way and with a knife rather than a fork", or "If my goal is to eat potatoes without the skin, then I should peel them first". You are correct in saying that if you don't like eating potatoes (or prefer them with the skin on) then you have no reason to peel them. The reason your argument seems circular is because you have framed it that way.

I thought it was fairly clever, or it would have been, if it were true. I almost snorted when he said, "Now this position requires excellent negotiation and interpersonal skills". Not in my experience, buddy.

Why does it annoy you? Seems to me that you are confused here. If an early contradiction is indeed a contradiction, then it does mean that any argument based on that contradiction is invalid and has no truth value. As J-William said above, I don't have time to sift through everyone's bad arguments to see if there is any value in what they are saying, and even in the unlikely event that there were, it would be completely accidental. If I want to repair my car and a mechanic tells me how I should go about doing it but while giving me instructions he reveals that he has no idea how a transmission works, I could follow his advice and hope he just made a simple mistake.... or I could go to a competent mechanic. This idea that I should try anyway because it might work or there might be some value in what he's saying is irrelevant to me.

I haven't tried the audio book. Honestly the text version is probably a much better choice since this is complicated stuff he is going through. It's much easier when you can review parts that you are unsure of. If you are seeing language manipulations then you aren't reading the same thing as me One of the pillars of UPB is self-ownership, which is very similar to Locke's arguments about property, however, UPB doesn't evaluate categorical imperatives; It has to do with hypothetical ones. (morality is optional) Like I said above, it deals with the hypothetical imperatives. In regards to morality that means having the goal of being good. Are you sure you've read it? Half of the book is devoted to logical arguments proving that you can't.... Moral principles, such as don't steal, don't kill, etc.

By available I didn't mean available for me in particular. I meant "on the market" so to speak, that the woman is single and straight and looking for men to date. Of course friends aren't perfect, but both parties still have to agree in the end in order for the friendship to occur. When I speak of deficiency, I mean a deficiency that is considered bad enough to prevent a relationship from forming. (or going any further than friendship) I almost instantly lose interest when I find out a woman is taken. Cheating is gross in my opinion so that's not an issue for me. What do you mean by 'got both'? Well that's the question isn't it? If they themselves are attractive, single, looking for a man to date, and even share similar values (which they would have to if they were a friend) there must be something about you that doesn't meet their standards. That's what I mean by deficient.

Incredible, the meaning is both clear and powerful. I love it.

Ah the classic 'watchmaker' theory, which if true has no relevance anyway! The only thing funnier than the idea itself is arguing it with another person.

It does actually; In fact it's required. Without the conditional (goal, in other words) you give up any hope of your 'ought' being objective, and subsequently, moral. Well logically, you can't be a thief if you don't. So if your goal is to be one, then in fact, you ought to steal. Empathy is about understanding the feelings of others, which has nothing to do with ethics. In your example, the victim is not "correct" in any sense that I can see. The torturer, by the nature of his occupation, must act in complete opposition to the preferences of his victim. Ah now I understand, you are making the mistake of thinking that 'Universally Preferable' means 'Universally Valued'. I did this too when I first discovered UPB, but given that values are subjective this would be a logical contradiction. What it actually means is 'Objectively Required'. See page 32 of UPB for more on this. Sorry to be repetitive, but you really need to read UPB once more. The whole point of UPB is to evaluate whether some proposed human preference can be universalized, using logic. That's what sets it apart from any other categorization. Immorality is defined as a violation of moral principles, nothing more. I hope that helps somewhat. UPB is fascinating because it is both incredibly simple and intensely difficult to understand. This sounds contradictory but what I mean is that once you get the foundation, the method of application becomes easy; However, the implications permeate like the tendrils of a plant through every aspect of life, and their complexity can short-circuit even a brilliant mind. I hope you continue to pursue the challenge though, the rewards are well worth the effort.

Fair enough, if you equate rights with freedoms then at least I can see where the latter originates from. I have no idea why you would do that but the results are funny.

It's irrelevant in the case of religion because most people don't really believe in god anyway. If they did you would see them doing things like refusing medical treatment in favor of prayer. (as a consequence, people who are truly that irrational don't last long)

Sounds good man, I'm definitely interested in what exactly changed her mind.

Incapable of working through feelings? Uh, I guess that's one way to put it. Another might be not wanting to torture yourself by being around someone you are attracted to who will never feel the same way about you. It's one thing if she's already unavailable (married or lesbian for example) but if not then the implication is that you don't meet her standards in one way or another. I don't know how any self-respecting man could stay in a relationship like that, where the woman thinks you are deficient in some way. I would either want to meet that standard or drop the relationship because the emotional turmoil would be too great. To continue my analogy beyond the point of usefulness : Of course I would refuse to get the car! Then I would go to another dealership where I could get what I wanted plus the upgrades. Otherwise I would be thinking, "Why couldn't I get them? I thought I had the money that I needed, but apparently it wasn't good enough for the salesman". If you've been in the situation I'm describing, did you ever ask why not?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. If you like someone and they are a romantic possibility for you (meaning they are attractive, available, have similar goals, etc) then it doesn't make sense to limit yourself to friendship does it? I mean if I had a choice between a car and a car with all the upgrades, then assuming that I liked the upgrades and that they were free, why would I pass them up?

Wow that describes me exactly. I resist starting many projects because as soon as I do I find it hard to stop. If I try to do a task in parts I don't feel like I'm getting as much done or doing the same quality of work, and interrupting the flow of creativity makes it difficult to start again. (especially maintaining the same level of interest and motivation)