[Moral rules and (non) enforcement]

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.

[Moral rules and (non) enforcement]

Actually yes, the scientific method and math are not objective. 

 

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

[Moral rules and (non) enforcement]

Good is relative in the sense that it depends on some goal or some alternative state. 

 

No, it doesn't. Whether being good or not is your goal does not change whether or not it is objective.

 

A table is neither good nor bad since it does not exist relative to a goal or has an alternative state. 

 

A table has no capacity to be good or bad because a table cannot act freely.

 

Good and bad are value judgement and are completely depended on perception so i am pretty sure Good is a relative term. 

 

You are confusing the adjective good, which describes the desirability of something, with the noun good, which refers to that which is morally righteous.

 

If something exists objectively, we call it natural law or matter.... Applying something universally, i.e human law/morality, does not make it objective, since in the absence of a conscious mind, human mind, it does not exist, and you are compelled to follow it by other humans.

 

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.

[Moral rules and (non) enforcement]

Good is intrinsically a relative term, so good relative to what? 

 

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.

[What does UPB mean?]

4. UPB = A series of conditional statements highlighting what is preferred provided you have certain goals in mind.

 

5. UPB = A series of conditional statements highlighting what should be preferred provided you have certain goals in mind.

 

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. 

 

Yes. However, it is quite a difficult concept to grasp.

 

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.

[Its not you. Its me.]

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.

 

I have been throughout my life (and arguably still am) a follower and very impressionable; when I was young I was not necessarily encouraged to have my own beliefs as I was raised in a religious household (Mormon) and I was always a very shy person. This led me to latch on to anything that my parents believed in (i.e. I was Mormon because they were; I was conservative because they were, etc).

 

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"

[Inspired by podcast conversation!]

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

[What does UPB mean?]

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

[I see dead people (who can't think)]

It's the combination of arrogance and lack of rigour.

 

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? 

[The way lying is defined at FDR]

I'm sure we've all experienced this. I know I felt it when Stefan made the case for statism in one of his books. I hated listening to it because I was like "I know this is wrong, but I feel like it is right". When Stefan deconstructed every argument after, I felt quite relieved.

 

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.

[Hi from Michigan]

I’ve always had an almost grandiose (or at least if you have depression I read you’re prone to ‘grandiosity’) belief that I’m destined for greatness, but I don’t think I should relinquish that. I refuse to believe that I’m the one who’s crazy and not the world.

 

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. 

[Moral rules and (non) enforcement]

The second statement is circular because morality=good. So in essence it reads like

In regards to morality that means having the goal of being moral. However, if the goal of morality is to be moral, then unless one enjoys being moral, it is a pointless task. It is like saying the goal of peeling potatoes is to have the potatoes peeled, so if one does not enjoy peeling potatoes, one has no reason to peel them.

 

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.

[World's Toughest Job (Viral Video about Moms)]

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.

[I see dead people (who can't think)]

I suppose that is one of the things that annoys me. 

 

Why does it annoy you? 

 

An early contradiction does not necessarily mean later arguments won't be interesting or in some way valuable; perhaps the contradiction as apparent is not in fact a contradiction, or perhaps it is reconciled later.

 

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.

[Moral rules and (non) enforcement]

I tried listening to the UPB audio book and i just got annoyed after a while. UPB is such an obscure concept that it seems to change at every use of it. In some instances it is what people ought to do. In other instances it is contrary to what everyone does. It is hard to understand any of it because there is a lot of language manipulations from the is to ought that makes the entire concept of UPB mind shattering. The whole book boils down to one statement for me, "Thus when I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people should prefer, not what they always do prefer." Of course he spends the rest of the book trying to explain why we one thing or the other should be preferred, but it just gets really confusing for me. If i had to sum the whole thing up, i would say he combines Kant's categorical imperative with Locke's property rights.

 

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)

 

For which goal is UPB objectively required? Or is it required regardless of your goals?

 

Like I said above, it deals with the hypothetical imperatives. In regards to morality that means having the goal of being good.

 

Every preference can be universalized. The preference to commit aggression against others can be universalized, but it would have very bad effects; it could even cause human extinction. But to call such effects bad, is to invoke a value.

 

Are you sure you've read it? Half of the book is devoted to logical arguments proving that you can't....

 

Which principles?

 

Moral principles, such as don't steal, don't kill, etc. 

[Can a guy have female friends?]

I don't understand the bolded.  If they don't want to be with you, they are unavailable to you.  This is true for every non-romantic relationship you have.  All of your regular friends find you deficient (to use your term) in one way or another, and likewise you find them deficient in one way or another.  I think you should ask yourself why you find yourself romantically attracted to people that are unavailable to you.  Doesn't the fact that they are unavailable make you not want to have a romantic relationship with them?

 

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.

 

I have found myself in the situation you put forward; I got both.

 

What do you mean by 'got both'? 

 

But they don't have similar goals, they don't want to be with you for whatever reason–maybe they find you physically unattractive–nor are they available.  

 

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.

[FoO art theme]

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

[The way lying is defined at FDR]

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.

[Moral rules and (non) enforcement]

Adding a conditional does not, in itself, get us closer to or further away from an "ought" in the moral sense of the word.

 

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. 

 

For example, if you want to be a thief, then you ought to steal? No.

 

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.

 

Humans, on the other hand, can understand what suffering and joy actually means, and they have the ability of empathy, which is very relevant for the subject of ethics. Consider, for example, an extreme situation where someone is literally tortured by someone else. The victim says: "You are hurting me severely. You ought to stop." The statement of the victim is correct, although he deduced an "ought" from an "is". To say otherwise, would that not amount to moral nihilism?

 

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. 

 

When the "ought not" implication is removed from the concept of immorality, combined with the idea of complete subjectivity of value, the result is this:

- "rights" without the implication of an ought

- "self-ownership" without the implication that we ought to respect it

- "good" that is not objectively valuable, "evil" without negative objective value

- "immoral" without the implication that we ought not do it

It makes no sense to me.

 

What do you mean by "virtue", if it is not morally required (no ought), not objectively valuable, and not universally preferable?

 

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.

 

There are many logically consistent ways to categorize human action, or the subset of human action that is the enforcement of a preference. We can categorize it based on whether or not it is the initiation of force, whether or not it raises the aggregate life expectancy of humans, whether or not it raises CO2 emission. This categorization based on the initiation of force, what sets it apart from all other categorizations? What is the relevance of it, apart from an exercise in logical consistency? That it tells us what is immoral? But what is "immoral" according to your definition? Not in the sense of how we determine it, but what it is. It would be helpful if such concepts were clearly defined.

 

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. 

[The deadly superstition of human rights video review]

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.

 

Why do we need a constitution or a bill of freedoms? Well first, there was a lot of debate about the bill of freedoms, which is why it wasn't released till years later. The main fear was if they listed some freedoms it could be interpreted that that's all the freedoms there are or that the state was the source of said freedoms. Which is the reason behind the ninth amendment. Why the constitution then? It was an attempt to control government. 

[The way lying is defined at FDR]

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)

[Dealing With Unreasonable People]

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

[Can a guy have female friends?]

Assuming he wants the relationship and she doesn't, I could understand why it would become difficult to have a platonic relationship with someone you have unrequited strong feelings for.  However, I think the biggest factor at play is his emotional stability.  If he's incapable of working through his feelings and accepting the fact that she is only interested in a platonic friendship then he has bigger issues to focus on (self knowledge).  To use your analogy: if you couldn't get the car with the upgrades (she doesn't want a romantic relationship) would you then refuse to get a car at all (platonic relationship)?

 

It has always been easy for me to be friends with women so I might be coming at this from a different perspective.  I see a romantic relationship as an upgrade over a platonic relationship which is an upgrade over a non-relationship.  If a romantic relationship is off the table, I have to be honest with myself.  Since all of the qualities that I like about this person are still there, it would be nonsensical for me to downgrade all the way to a non-relationship.

 

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? 

[Can a guy have female friends?]

Different goals in life.  For example, maybe she wants kids and he doesn't or maybe she wants to dedicate her time to work and he wants someone that will be around more often.  There are plenty of reasons why you can be sexually attracted to someone and not want a romantic relationship.  I find one of my girl friends semi-attractive, but have no interest in a romantic relationship because, among other things, she has a child and I don't want another.

 

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?

[Procrastination Is The Avoidance of Shame]

I'll just leave this here:

 

Oddly Developed Types: INTPs and ADD

 

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)