TDB

There's been a discussion of UPB over on liberty.me. My spur-of-the-moment summary of UPB was:The purpose of UPB is to examine moral propositions and categorize them as true or false. Stef has several tests for this, including non-contradiction and feasibility. Moral propositions that pass the tests are considered true, those that fail are false. That provides a basis for categorizing action as either violating or conforming to the true moral propositions.

I don't think this is correct. UPB categorizes moral propositions, not behaviors, though that is a bit of a quibble. "Enforceable preferences" get tossed into the category of ethics, so either universal or not. If the moral proposition passes the tests, it is universal, otherwise not. Your analysis may make sense, but it's not UPB, you have some original content in there, in conflict with Stef's version. Accept no substitutes!

Somehow that implication snuck past me. Maybe we could make it more clear? Didn't say "cannot." My point is it is confusing, overly complicated, not wrong. Preference implies a ranking with a top choice and some number of losers. Here there are infinite choices, sorted into 2 categories, with no particular ranking within the categories. Somehow I think you're arguing about something else. Are we having one of those Internet moments? I am happy you are so comfortable with the jargon. If you understood this immediately, you are unusually perceptive. I didn't get it for a long time. I'm not entirely sure I get it now. Hence my desire to simplify, if possible. The discussion on my end has never been about truth value. It is about trying to express a simple idea in simple language for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with it. I'm not willing to tackle calculus, but if I thought I could make it simpler, I'd give it a try. Precisely My point. So why are you okay with "universally preferable Behaviour" not not "universally sufficient Behaviour?" That was your objection, wasn't it, that sufficiency needs someone for whom it is sufficient? Is there a better word? "Conforms to the standard?" My case is, anyone who has not spent plenty of effort previously to get up to speed on UPB would find that incomprehensible. Now that (I hope) I have a clue, it seems like irrelevant jargonizing. There may be a point underneath all the verbiage, but well hidden. It would not be necessary at all, if a more descriptive phrase, like "universally sufficient," was used in place of "universally preferable." Okay, what verb would you like to use? I hope we agree that they define distinctions, maybe that phrase works better? Delineate? Draw distinctions? Categorize action into okay and not okay?

Just as "Universally Preferable Behaviour" diverts many to the question, "preferable to whom in pursuit of what goal?"Preferable implies a ranking, the system Stef devised actually creates a binary categorization.Fine, toss out "sufficient." Please help me find a better word, one that means "measuable by an objective standard." Well, no, that is my original point, that "universally preferable" communicates poorly, that it is jargon. "Don't murder" actually is understandable to the uninitiated, "murder is not universally preferable" is just confusing.UPB divides the set of moral propositions into those that are universal and those that are not. And those propositions divide the set of actions into those that violate the propositions and those that do not. There is no ranking, no preferring happening, no preferableness. Everything has been mapped out, surveyed, evaluated with regard to sufficiency.If you want to x, it is preferable that you conform to the moral propositions that pass the UPB tests. What is X? Prohibited by the moral propositions that pass the UPB tests. Who gave us those?If there can be a preference without a preferer, why not a prohibition without a prohibitor? How does that objection not apply equally to "preferable?" If you included the context, I might remember more clearly. If I recall, you made some convoluted jargon statement that could be decoded with difficulty into something clear and concise, understandable by a person who has not spent months studying. The moral propositions are all of the form, "don't do X." Subcategories within the category of not doing X gets treated as practically irrelevant in the UPB book. Maybe I am distorting it, but I think UPB is all about drawing that line between what moral propositions are universal and aren't, what the universal moral propositions allow and what they prohibit, and justifying that. That is the essense of UPB, in my opinion. I think we could remove every use of the word "prefer" and every use of a word with that root from the book, replace it with other words, and the book would be improved, easier to understand. Sorry, apparently I have not been clear. In this discussion, I have not been arguing against any of the content of UPB. I have been trying to replace the jargonistic use of the word "preferable" with some word or phrase that clearly describes or better hints at what the UPB system actually does/is. I think Stef is much less concerned about categorizing non-violations than he is about finding the line between what is a violation and is not. Can there be two correct mathematics? Should the identity of the grader change the grade on the math paper? If the standard is objective, the identity of the person applying the standard is irrelevant, or it fails.It's not easy to explain why I don't understand something, why it confuses me, why it continues to make my brain stumble even now that I understand it as a pure jargon term.I have no problem with "universally" and "Behaviour." Maybe I should just suggest Molyneux's meta-ethics.

UPB stands for universally preferable behaviour. It is a framework used for testing moral propositions. That means, you find a moral proposition and you subject it to tests. Those that fail are false, those that pass are true. True means enforceable, though Stef has left the details of enforcement vague. The main requirement for moral propositions to pass the tests is universality. The proposition must apply to all moral agents at all times and places. Stef uses universality to argue for the coma test and the 2 guys in a room test. Moral agents must also have free choice, in the sense that no one is explicitly coercing them. That is, if I hold a gun to your head and threaten to kill you if you disobey me, I have nullified your responsibility for your actions, according to Stef. The coma test claims that, due to universality, no one is obligated to do anything that a person in a coma is not also obligated to do. Since a coma victim can't do anything but lie there and breathe, no one is required to do more. The 2 guys in a room test investigates whether 2 persons can be moral at the same time and place. If a moral proposition excludes this possibility, it fails the test. If you forget everything else, UPB is about condemning hypocrisy. Forum thread http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39599-what-does-upb-mean/

Assumes, or derives elsewhere?My paraphrase of your objection is, why can't someone conform to the premises and norms of debate during the debate, and abandon them in other circumstances? Is that like saying "2 + 2 = 4 only when it is convenient to me?" Or is it more like saying, "when I want truth I debate, when I want safety I use overwhelming force?" Either you accept the premises and norms of debate, or you don't, at least, according to UPB. With premises this seems clear, a proposition is either true or false. (We can quibble about facts about particular times, circumstances, and places, but I doubt the premises of debate contain those.) With norms, maybe not. Stef has a strong position on universality of norms, but we might be able to convince ordinary people that the norms of argumentation are like rules of a game, they can change when you decide to play a different game, or stop playing. So we need an argument establishing universality, which I have made a feeble attempt at elsewhere. ( http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2014/02/strong-universality-in-upb.html)Why does arguing require me to obey the norms in the first place? Take non-initiation of force as an example. If I win an argument by threatening or attacking another participant, I lose credibility. It is no longer a debate, but a brawl, no longer about discovering truth, but about dominance. Winning the debate no longer establishes the truth of anything, even in a weak sense. It may be that I argue on weekdays and brawl on weekends, but (according to UPB) if I argue for initiation of force, that is always a contradiction. Change the identity of the person making the argument, or the time of day, or day of the year, or year, or location, still it contradicts itself. So I can do what I wish, I just can't justify it using argument if it supports initiation of force.Do I really contradict myself if I argue that someone else, in some context other than debate, is justified in initiating force for some purpose other than seeking truth? Must I embrace a very broad norm in order to be able to argue consistently? So, to restate your objection again, we can imagine narrow or broad norms of debate, how does Stef argue for his embrace of universal norms of debate?For example, say I wanted to argue that Obama can justify droning Kim Dotcom. Ignore the justification, am I contradicting myself merely by using argument to justify an act of aggression? The narrow interpretation says no, since Obama is not debating with Dotcom or trying to establish truth, the norms of debate do not apply. The broad interpretation says the norms of debate always apply, as if we are all debating at all times and places, and all our actions are part of this debate.If an argument works for me, it should work for Obama. If it works against you, it should work against Dotcom. So we can imagine a debate where Obama uses my words to justify killing Dotcom, with Dotcom as his opponent. Is Obama contradicting the norms of debate by saying effectively, "After the debate is over, I will kill you, and I justify this with the following reasons?" For now, I am not comfortable with either position. maybe you guys can help me out. That link is quite a rabbit hole. Searching around, I found a link that refers to the critique of Hoppe coauthored by. Bob Murphy, is that what you had in mind? https://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf Hoppe uses a similar performative contradiction move, but he tries to prove the NAP and property rights directly, while Stef maybe is more modest. When I read Hoppe way back when, he did not convince me. But Murphy's critiques don't convince me either. I should probably blog about that.

I don't know where you were going with this, I thought we were already assuming UPB? I've been trying to understand why Stef uses avoidance to distinguish between ethics and aesthetics. Or rarther, where he derives that distinction, and how. Maybe that lured me off the path. Link to details?Would I be in the ballpark if I paraphrased it as, argumentation ethics is complicated and rubegoldbergy?

I think this needs unpacking, but I am having trouble. Maybe I can paraphrase:If a violent conflict breaks out between two persons, one of them must be morally in the wrong. The person who causes the transition from non-violent to violent interaction is in the wrong.This needs some tidying up, to cover cases such as theft that may not be strictly violent. We also have to deal with the case of a boxing match, in which 2 persons attack each other but no one is morally in the wrong.How does UPB show us that one of the persons must be wrong? Perhaps when he tries to justify his attack, he somehow contradicts himself? So argument presupposes a norm of non-violence, or perhaps non-initiation? This is because using violence to "win" a debate actually transforms it from a debate into a brawl, and a brawl has none of the truth-seeking aspects of debate.Am I close?

Why not? "It is sufficient for my purpose." You have switched to "prefer." We were discussing "preferable." You are making my case for me. This is unnecessarily confusing, a digression. We can use the awkward description "'Not murder' is ranked as preferred to 'murder,'" or we could just say "don't murder" or "murder is prohibited" or "murder is not universalizable." UPB is, at this level, a categorization scheme with two categories, not a full ranking. Or a ranking with only two ranks, which again overcomplicates it. Using the word "preferable" is confusing. Kevin explained how this works at all, as in his example "if you want to travel from New York to Paris, it is preferable to fly." I think there must be a more intuitive, clear way to talk about this that is still correct, and leads directly to the actual idea of testing moral propositions for logical, practical, and argumentative feasibility. You lost me. If you are saying that we can divide the "allowed" category into "aesthetically positive," "neutral," and "aesthetically negative," That does not convince me that "preferable" is the right word. Stef did not discuss this, so either he disagrees or thinks it is not important enough to include in the book. I'm not sure whether what you're saying makes sense, but it does not matter. The essence of UPB is what passes/does not pass the UPB tests, isn't it? It's yes or no, not a ranking. The allower, prohibitor, evaluator, consists of the tests. So help me out. "Preferable" does not work. The idea we are trying to express is behaviour that conforms to moral propositions that pass the UPB tests. Help me find a word. It can't really be more clearly described than it is in the book... You are a pessimist. I read that passage over and over during the past months, in frustration. Stef is clouding the issue by using biological metaphors. The "universal preference" for not eating poison is just a hypothetical imperative, cause and effect. "Objectively required" gives entirely the wrong idea, which is why he switches to "preferable".I think what he actually means is logical necessity, isn't it? "If you want truth, use logic and evidence." You can ignore the conclusion, but you can't refute it.Maybe he should have called it "Universal Metaethics?" "Metaethics of universality?"

When he discusses UPB, Stef uses a number of words in a surprising way, distinct from common usage: ethics, morality, universality, inflicted, avoidable, aesthetic, binding, enforceable, preference and evil are important examples. I posted a UPB jargon blog entry (http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2014/01/upb-jargon.html) trying to point out what you need to notice when he uses these words. Ethics and morality are used interchangeably, and the boundary between ethics (enforceable) and aesthetics (not enforceable) is marked by avoidability. All moral propositions must be universal in the sense that they apply to all moral agents at all times and places. All morality is interpersonal, as in, if your actions have no impact at all on another person, or the impact is avoidable, then ethics says nothing about them.

Yes. The forward is a nice allegory. Then the introduction starts in on the "null zone", which is an interesting idea but not a summary of UPB, what it means and how he plans to derive it. Part 1 just starts grinding away at the details, no high level, no transition. He tosses the puzzle pieces in a box, leaves it up to the reader to put them together. That would be valuable also, a FAQ or Frequently Made Errors. I have a bit of that in my FAQ, under the criticisms section. http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2014/05/upb-faq-02.html

If I understand you, this is something that confuses me also. Stef discusses this "if you want X you must do Y" idea a lot in the book. Has he got an X that everyone does want? No, I don't think so. So, either the entire discussion of "if you want X" is beside the point, and UPB just tells you what is moral and not why you should stick with it; or else the X is "to be moral." What is moral, why be moral, two separate questions.But I could be entirely wrong, because he does not really answer this question as such. Or if he did, it snuck past me.

<quibble> universally preferred != everyone wants to</quibble> No proposition about getting married counts as a moral proposition as part of UPB, because there is nothing enforceable about it. It would fall within the category of aesthetics, unless we are talking about shotgun weddings. Stef bases the separation of ethics from aesthetics on the idea of avoidance. I would try to explain, but I also do not really understand that yet myself. At first glance, it seems random, ad hoc, arbitrary. "Aesthetics applies to situations that may be unpleasant, but which do not eliminate your capacity to choose." How does capacity to choose relate to the UPB derivation? We can't argue if we have no capacity to choose? I like it, but where does this come from?

It is pretty standard rhetoric in nonfiction to summarize the argument, approach, and hint strongly at the conclusion in the first chapter. Simple and clean descriptions can be followed by details and explanations. This helps the reader figure out what is going on. Companion guide or V2 sounds great to me. In the age of the internet, improvements improve things.

Thanks, that makes sense, I wasn't making the connection. But there's still something different going on. Your example works well with my understanding of preferences, there are choices available, one is chosen as best given the desires of the chooser. In UPB, there's no single best choice, there's million of choices, some of which violate the moral propositions, some which do not. I think it could be made much clearer. "Preferable" led me down a long rabbit hole. So help me out. Is "preferable" really the only word you could use? What do you mean, murder is not universally prohibited? If I consent to you killing me, it is euthanasia, not murder. I believe Stef has made this distinction himself, though I forget the context. If by "concern" you mean Stef could make this much clearer, we are in agreement. My concern is that the word "preferred" hides and confuses the meaning, and that I hope we could find a better word to use there. Clearly Stef did not intend to mean that something was preferred by everyone or someone. I want to find words that express that meaning in a way I understand clearly. You completely lost me. The best I can do with this is paraphrase it as "No moral proposition will pass the UPB tests," which is not true. Probably you mean something else, but I don't know what. In this case, "prefer" is again being used in a confusing way. UPB does not actually imply that anyone prefers anything in the sense that they would choose it from a set of unconstrained alternatives. That is a big part of why I think it is a bad choice for conveying this meaning. In my understanding, the moral propositions divide behaviour into two sets, acceptable and not acceptable. The moral propositions are not part of UPB, it does not derive them, it just evaluates them. On the other hand, UPB does claim that the act of arguing presupposes certain norms and premises. Norms have normative content. So UPB is pretty clear on whether or not there are universal norms, or at least, it claims that if you try to argue against certain norms, you are contradicting yourself. You make a good point, but my effort was to summarize UPB in 3 sentences, obviously it will not be precise. To the ordinary person, hypocrisy and self-contradiction are pretty close. I think my "wrong" summary communicates the idea better than any "correction" I can think of. Help me out, if you can. How would you correct it? Opportunity for us to use our brains. Let's fix it.

Wouldn't it be clearer to say "murder is universally prohibited behaviour," or "murder is involuntary on the part of the victim," or "murder is not consensual?" Or even, "Murder is not universally glitzmorph behaviour," and then define glitzmorph? The word "preferable" does not fit here, Stef has jargonized it. I think it is unnecessarily confusing. So are you just defining the jargon, or do you think this definition applies generally? In what context would you use the word "preferable" to mean that, outside of a discussion of Stef's philosophy? Would you expect anyone to understand you, other than someone who has hung around this forum or Stef's youtube channel? Can you use it with this meaning in a sentence that is not about UPB?

Exactly, so why does the word "preferable" ever come into it? That sounds like consent, not preference. You're saying it is not voluntary, which would be clearer language. Is this in response to something I wrote? I am not making a connection.

That definition sounds more like the definition of "sufficient."If it makes sense to you, help me understand why Stef used the word "preferable" at all. It implies a distinction between personal preferences and universal preferences. Should this make sense to me? To me, preference refers to a ranking, this is preferred to that, these two are indifferent. Maybe I am too stuck in econthink.UPB does not do much ranking, it makes one big distinction and is indifferent between the various things within each category. A particular theft is not preferred to a particular murder, and one non-violation is not preferred to any other.UPB rejects some moral propositions, accepts others, on the grounds of logical, practical, or argumentative impossibility. The moral propositions themselves refer to prohibitions. Why call it universally preferred behaviour? Wouldn't universally prohibited behaviour, or universally allowed behaviour, or universally evaluated behaviour, or even universalized behaviour, make more sense? Using the idea of preferability causes all sorts of confusion. Does the universe prefer? Does everyone prefer? etc.What am I missing?

Thanks. I wish this thread had the UPB tag. I am not able to add it.

Similar issues in this thread:http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37376-going-ufc-on-upb/Please consider adding the UPB tag to this thread, only the original,poster can do that.

I'd like to suggest that you add the UPB tag to this thread, please.

De minimis. Since he is also breathing, the harm cancels out, if you can even call it harm.

It is one thing to say that it is hard in practice to draw the line between two categories, say child and adult. It is another to have several conceptually clear categories as part of a theory or concept, but to be unable to explain the significance of the distinction. UPB has moral agents, which includes some humans, and would include intelligent aliens if they exist. There are human non-moral agents, such as infants and some brain injury patients. And there are non-human non-moral agents, such as cows. But we would categorize alien infants as non-human non-moral agents. Presumably we would not treat them like animals. I'm not sure what UPB implies in this area. <quibble>Their relatives may be dead.</quibble>I am still having trouble understanding the special status of the coma victim. Okay, any obligations he had voluntarily accepted before his injury are still in effect. But with respect to the future, his status is exactly like that of an infant, that is, at some point in the future he may (re)opt in to moral agency by recovering his consciousness. One has not yet developed the capacity to argue, the other has lost that capacity, perhaps permanently. So negative obligations apply only to those who can argue (or used to be able to argue), but positive obligations, if they existed, would apply to those who cannot argue? Yeah, maybe the coma test should be rechristened the napper test.Category|example|subject______|objectObject__|rock___|n/a__________|ownableAnimal__|dolphin|not moral agent|OwnableHuman__|baby__|not moral agent|not ownableHuman__|coma vic|?___________|not ownableHuman__|napper_|moral agent___|not ownableAlien___|baby___|not moral agent|not ownableSo, with regard to your actions, UPB applies if you are a moral agent, able to argue. With regard to how you are treated by moral agents, it depends on your species? Moral agents must treat other moral agents as not ownable, and also members of species that are potentially moral agents? My primary concern is to understand UPB and how the concepts and categories derive from logic, argumentation, and whatever else. Anything that appears in the legal system needs a philosophical basis. I apologize for the legalistic language, but I wanted to talk about infants and coma victims and animals, how UPB deals with non-moral agents. In some cases they may be owned by a moral agent, in others they need a moral agent to take responsibility for them, as in a legal guardian. That is partly because I want to think about how UPB treats those who deny it, after the denial. I am interested in figuring out what implications UPB has for justification of rule enforcement, proportionality, punishment, etc. Okay, there are practical problems to overcome, such as distinguishing in practice between adults and minors, but there are also philosophical points.

Okay, we give infants a pass, and coma patients, why not people taking a nap? I guess a sleepwalker would owe restitution if he did property damage. I am not worrying about the cutoff point, I am worrying that you have two classes of humans. Even if we could define the cutoff point precisely, this bothers me. We must be separating the issue of who qualifies as a moral agent, and how do moral agents treat human beings generally? That makes sense. Is there a clear derivation of this somewhere? Maybe we should just propose a moral proposition, and see if it passes the UPB tests. No, actually the ones we've got already will do, it's just I'd been thinking moral agents were only restricted with regard to each other, bad assumption. Murder includes murder of humans in the gray area, etc. But then how about animals? Why not include killing animals as murder? And that is because of universality, right? We can have voluntary positive obligations, and they don't disappear when we fall asleep, nor do we violate them by not actively fulfilling them at every instant. If I borrow money from you and promise to repay you Tuesday, I am obligated at all times, even while asleep, but I only must take one action and I don't need to take it until Tuesday.

We are talking about someone's thoughts, motives, and feelings. So yes, emphatically, subjective.