TDB

The real issue here is the murders, not the diplomats.I think UPB has 2 possible consequences.1) The Romans contradict themselves if they try to justify the murders.2) Someone would be justified in enforcing a rule against murder upon the Romans.

I am a bit confused about this also. UPB hangs on participating in debate, I am very tempted to say that it applies to anyone willing and capable of participating in debate. So space aliens would be included if they arrive. Animals clearly excluded. What about infants, coma victims, Alzheimers patients? Am I justified in treating them like animals, or is there something in the UPB concept that creates a special category for them? They are unlikely to violate moral propositions, but we could lifeboat together a weird example where they caused harm. Conventional thinking is they need a legal guardian who is responsible, but does UPB agree? Other options for who UPB applies to include: anyone who argues, anyone who chooses moral agency, anyone choosing to live in society, or just everything.

According to my understanding, UPB seeks to show that the statement, "I am justified in breaking this rule for reasons x, y, and z," contradicts itself. This statement will contradict itself if "this rule" is presupposed by the act of arguing. Reasons x-z are irrelevant, no matter how convincing they sound. Also, UPB seeks to show that for some rules, the statement "I am justified in enforcing this rule violently," does not contradict itself. Rules will be violated and rules will be enforced. UPB seeks to show what is or is not justified. My understanding may be wrong. Hoppe uses a very similar twist, but he goes straight from "You are arguing, which presupposes certain things," to NAP and property rights being what is presupposed. Habermas used a similar idea, but he is a Marxist, I doubt he derived property rights, he probably tried to derive socialized medicine.

Stef leaves enforcement very abstract in the book. The word is only used a few times. I can imagine 3 responses: 1) Some justification of sending people to jail that does not contradict itself the same way a justification of kidnapping does, not sure how. Not obvious to me. 2) "who said anything about jail?" 3) the whole UPB book is a justification of rule-enforcement as a special case. I've been thinking about this also. Enforcement is violent, it is inflicted, it is not avoidable from the perspective of the rule violator. Hence it is in the category of ethics, and is either obligatory or prohibited, the 2 guys in a room either must always enforce rules or never enforce rules. To say "you may enforce the rules if you like" would treat rule enforcement as aesthetic, but it involves force, violence, not avoidable, so that won't work. The man in a coma is not able to enforce rules, so it fails the coma test. Does that mean rule enforcement is prohibited? Self-defense is either a subset of rule enforcement or a very similar case. Moral proposition: You must defend yourself when assaulted. Fails the coma test, passes 2 guys in a room. It involves violence, not avoidable, inflicted, so it is in the ethics category. So it's either obligatory or prohibited. Failing the coma test means it cannot be obligatory. So it is prohibited. Or else it is a special case? Relevant stuff on page 87 of Stef's book: Self-defense cannot be “evil,” since evil by definition can be prevented through force. However, self-defense is a response to the initiation of force, and thus cannot be prevented through force How did we get this definition of evil? Cannot be prevented in the sense of "it would be wrong" or "it can't happen no matter what?" also on page 87: He's making a distinction between violence and force. So rule-enforcment and self-defense are not violent in some sense? page 87 again: If Bob attacks Doug, but it is completely wrong for Doug to use violence to defend himself, then violence ends up being placed into two moral categories – the initiation of force is morally good, but self-defense is morally evil, which cannot stand according to UPB. Why not put both instances of violence into the evil category?

I redid this answer below, due to HTML problems.

Deleted.

Gotcha. My own comment ("Why think about it") makes no sense to me now. I guess I was thinking something like, imagine two possibilities. In one scenario, you learn of a prestigious scientist performing an experiment that convinces you that determinism is true. In the other scenario, the same scientist proves to your satisfaction that determinism is false. Imagine "you" after both of these events. What will the "you" that believes in determinism do differently from the "you" who does not?

I don't know, we're out of my depth. But why think about it if it's not good enough to convince Mike Fleming?If it can't be proven in one way or another, isn't it irrelevant? hypotheses:* the universe is a big clockwork, and someone with the right equations, processing power, and data could calculate precise predictions of the state of the universe at any time. Our subjective experiences of thinking and making choices are closely analogous to rocks in a landslide, they are illusory. Our subjective experience is misleading, but we cannot correct it by discovering our mistake. It's like one of those optical illusions that refuses to go away even though you know what you think you see is not actually there.* the universe has nondeterministic elements in it, but I am still determined, and still wrong. Might as well be pessimistic.* the universe has nondeterministic elements in it, and my subjective experience of thinking, choosing, etc., is more or less accurate.* universe is a clockwork, but I am not. If I am part of universe, this is a logical contradiction. If I am separate from universe, that violates our definition of universe. By proving a contradiction, we show that one or more of our assumptions is incorrect, or equivocated, or misconceptualized. We goofed. The question is mis-specified.* This all assumes a naive version of the concept of time.* we don't really have a fracking clue, and might as well proceed however seems to work best using trial and error, not worrying about whether our model of one thing contradicts our model of something else we use in a different context. Actually, it seems like this is the best plan, whichever hypothesis appeals to you most.The floor is open for suggestions for experiments aimed at eliminating some of these from the running.

Maybe one that shows that the universe is not deterministic?

I've made several blog entries about UPB. http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/search/label/UPB The older posts reveal a deep confusion. I've worked my way to the shallow end, I hope.

Did my post sound snarky? I was hoping for amusing. I guess that was a mistake, as your response doesn't clear anything up for me. I should stick to the point and avoid making cracks.The truth or falsehood of determinism or free will seems irrelevant to me. Please help me understand how I should live my life differently in one case versus the other. Even assuming determinism, the day my belief in atheism or anarchism changes, my behavior will also change. I will start or stop attending church, or start or stop laughing at politics. But what does "robot me that believes in determinism" do differently from "robot me that believes in free will?" Why ask about what is fair, if the punishment was always going to happen, if society has no choice? Or is it that we choose, but do not choose freely? Not understanding.In a different context I would be interested in discussing alternatives to punishment. Are you actually offering any alternatives, or just suggesting that people should never be punished?We seem to be taking it as uncontroversial that the universe is deterministic. Is that so?

I cheerfully admit I've never really understood what the argument is about and I started reading this thread hoping to figure it out. Sadly, I only got halfway through page 3 before I gave up, no wiser. I apologize for barging in late. Is there an experiment that we could perform, even conceptually, that would show whether or not we have free will? If so, what is it? (Maybe godlike start two identical universes with identical initial conditions and then see if they diverge? Would that do it? Or maybe create two identical universes with people in them, and in one go tell subject X he has free will, and tell subject X he has no free will in the other, then see what they do differently? But then the universes aren't identical anymore...) We seem to be taking it as uncontroversial that the universe is deterministic. Is that so? I guess, by the deterministic view, I am really a robot running a sophisticated program simulating a person, and by becoming convinced that free will is wrong, I would realize I am a robot running a program and the program was timed to send me here to change my mind about free will? But even if free will is true, I am a robot running a sophisticated program written by evolution. My life is an accumulation of my failures and successes. But not if determinism is true? Or an actor on a stage, and the end of the play is written, though I am so "method" that I've forgotten I am acting? Or I think I am improvising, but actually I am reciting the script verbatim? If there is no experiment we can actually perform, does this question have any substance or meaning? How should I change my life if I become convinced that free will is an illusion, or that it is real? It seems completely irrelevant. Should I call in sick on Monday with a bad case of determinism?

Here's my latest stab at a summary of UPB: When someone makes a moral claim,if their proposition doesn't apply to all moral agents, everywhere, for all time (universality), then that person is a hypocrite and you can ignore their bogus claim. You can also ignore it if it has logical contradictions or practical impossibilities. If the moral claim survives those tests, we are justified in enforcing it in some way (it is binding, valid, true). I am not sure Stef would accept this interpretation.

Here's a bit from my UPB jargon page: Opposite: Stef doesn't actually use a different definition for this word, but he uses it in a context that confused some of his critics. For example, he begins by examining several possible categories (always good, sometimes good, positively aesthetic, personally preferred, neutral, etc.) He uses some of his other definitions to narrow down the range of possibilities to consider, so that only 2 possibilities remain. In that context, it is a bit confusing but not technically incorrect to use "not X" and "the opposite of X" interchangeably. Given the narrow context of the discussion, where he considers only two possibilities, "not X" and "the opposite of X" both refer to the same concept.

http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2009X/None/SimonSinek_2009X-light.mp4 This book and the linked author TED talk are about inspiration, leadership, and changing the world. In some ways his idea resonates well with FDR, particularly in regard to authenticity. Others not so much (role of limbic brain in decisions, belief, inspiration). I hope to review it on my blog soon, I'll add a link later.

The video linked by Forward more or less summarizes Haidt's book. I've read it, so it doesn't add much for me. But thanks anyhow. Haidt has given some TED talks, though I think his position has changed some since the 2008 one. http://www.ted.com/speakers/jonathan_haidt.html

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/01/jonathan_haidt.html

One of the things I like about UPB is the way that it deals with the boundary between moral agents and others. As children mature, they develop their ability to reason and debate and "opt in" to moral agency. Dead people opt out. Infants cannot debate, so they have not "opted in" to the norms of debate upon which UPB is built. Someday they will develop the capacity for moral thought, opt in, and become moral agents. Until then, others must both protect the infant from harm, and protect others from somehow being harmed by the infant. We should not treat them as if we owned them. Animals cannot debate. Does UPB treat them as moral agents who refuse to observe UPB, and their status is a result of their inability to restrain themselves? Or does it treat them as comparable to infants, except we can own them and eat them? Could a gorilla that knows sign language opt in to UPB? Certainly a space alien could.

So you're saying, murder is unwanted, or it's not murder. Both of the 2 guys in the room want to murder each other, but neither wants to be murdered. So for murder to be UPB, they would need to be able to say "murder is UPB and I think it's fine for the other guy to murder me?" I am still not seeing the necessity. This just seems to toss their opinions about the rule in arbitrarily. Would a supporter of slavery be able to say freeing slaves is not UPB, because the slave owners don't want it? I keep wanting to say there is an asymmetry between the murderer and victim, but both the 2 guys are potential murderers and potential victims. Stef's discussion of murder on page 73 never mentions the mismatch between the universal preference and their personal preferences, he just points out that they have to immediately try to kill each other and if one survives he is then evil again and has to go looking for another victim. I think we could say this much quicker by saying it would be absurd to think "murder is UPB."

But that seems to argue the other way. We are discussing universality and unwantedness. TDB definitely doesn't want to finish the assignment, it is unwanted, it violates his aesthetic preference. Yet the rules still applies. Here is Stef's statement: "Murder is unwanted, therefore it cannot be universalized to all people." I am still baffled by what unwantedness has to do with it. What is the exception or asymmetry that violates universality? Who is getting a pass? You said "The unwanted aspect Is simply a description of what murder is." So are you saying Stef may have misspoken, like murder is murderous therefore it's not universal? Does Stef's statement make sense on its own for you? Maybe unwanted=violently inflicted=UPB not APA? But I still don't understand how universality is being violated.

Yes, but what does "apply" mean? I have been reading it as "your actions are subject to the rule." I wasn't thinking that anyone's attitude toward the rules mattered, that people had to actually prefer the universal preferences. That seems like a stronger claim, harder to show. There are plenty of people with strange ideas, do they all have to consent? I need to think about this. In the coma test section, "Any ethical theory that posits a positive action as universally preferable behaviour faces the challenge of “the coma test.”" He does not use the word obligation, so my search missed it.

But my question was about the unwanted aspect, how that has anything to do with universality. I don't see the connection. Why does it matter what anyone wants, as long as the rule applies to everyone in the same way? 2 guys are in a room, both are supposed to murder, both want to live, one will succeed, the other will die, and being dead gives him an excuse. Or both will die. What's the problem from the standpoint of universality? Who is getting a pass?The question above is what I am really curious about, skip the rest of this post if you're pressed for time.There is another way to go at it, which illustrates my understanding of Stef's strong interpretation of universality. Think of a guy alone in a room, he can't just sit there, he needs to be murdering. If he is not murdering he is evil, because the rule applies at all times, even if there are no victims available. But this, if it really is a correct description of universality and not a straw man, seems sort of crazy. My first instinct is to interpret "murder is universally preferable behavior" as meaning "you can murder or not murder whenever you like." i think Stef rejects that possibility because that would mean that murder is neutral, not UPB. If violence is involved, it is UPB, the only question is whether it is required or proscribed. It took me a long time to figure out how anyone could get that. Here's my stab at an explanation: UPB ethics is about enforceable preferences. It is clearer to describe this situation as "it is a violation of UPB to not be murdering, and this rule will be enforced at all times."So if we accept this strong universality and Stef's definitions of the categories (UPB, APA, personal preferences, neutral), the rest seems to follow. The question that suggests itself at that point is, how do we convince a skeptic that Stef's definitions of strong universality and UPB are the correct ones? You know, I was sure that was in the book somewhere, but I just did a search and could not find it (first "positive obligation" and then just "obligation"). Could it be he uses different words, or did he develop that idea after the book was published, or did we collectively hallucinate it? [edit] Found it: 'Any ethical theory that posits a positive action as universally preferable behaviour faces the challenge of “the coma test.” ' page 67.

My understanding of universality is that if a rule applies at all, it applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times. Are you using the same definition? How does this seem like a violation of that idea? Why not just apply the "no unchosen positive obligations" idea? The rule "everyone must murder" imposes an unchosen positive obligation on me.

I am so confused. "It is aesthetically positive (universally preferable but not enforceable through violence, such as “politeness” and “being on time”)." page 64."In general, we will use the term aesthetics to refer to non-enforceable preferences – universal or personal – while ethics or morality will refer to enforceable preferences. It is universally preferable (i.e. required) to use the scientific method to validate physical theories, but we cannot use force to inflict the scientific method on those who do not use it, since not using the scientific method is not a violent action." page 48. I agree. Stef sometimes uses "inflicted," other times "violently inflicted." I am guessing he intends them to have e same meaning.I think that physical violence always promotes a proposition to ethics. That is, if the UPB violation involves physical violence, it is in ethics not aesthetics. Or if the violation involves no physical violence (e.g. shoplifting) , but enforcement may include physical violence, then it is ethics, not aesthetics. I'm too tired right now to try to find out whether Stef states this or argues for it somewhere. I am not certain.On the one hand, this is very useful when arguing against moral nihilism, it is ruled out by definition. oTOH, it's a bit arbitrary, why should a moral nihilist accept that definition? I hope I find a good explanation when I have more energy, I'll update this post if so. In ordinary language, people would not refer to car theft as a violent crime. Similarly with swindlers, embezzlers, etc. Perhaps there is good reason for revising our usage of the word "violent", but I hope you will at least admit you're using it in a different way. I am afraid it might just confuse people.

Apparently I misunderstood everything you said. Stef was not the issue, this issue was that we're not discussing 2+2=4, we're discussing recent hypotheses from psychological research. What is "this"? I thought the implication was we needed to think and study and pay attention to evidence before drawing a final conclusion, if we are even discussing the same thing.I said "Stef may be right in his hypothesis, and I hope he is, but I think that needs to be tested." I did not and do not want to discard your input, but I am not yet willing to accept it as gospel. It seems possible that some of the research may turn out to be just wrong, or mean something less wonderful than we are hoping for, so I don't want to bet the farm on it. Too many cliches in that paragraph, sorry. Apparently I misunderstood. Not what I had in mind. I was thinking more "consulting tutor" hired by someone in my position, comes and discusses issues and possible approaches. wRT Stef, more like the call-in show than the YouTube videos, but maybe in person. That is, a preselected audience, who have already bought in to the basic idea. True, not such a big market. You are over-generalizing. I already accept I need to be peaceful, negotiate, etc. I just might need some help knowing how to do that, since it is not what I am accustomed to. If your flat statement is true, FDR should have no members who are parents. I disprove that, and I know I am not alone. FDR members might not be such an enormous market now, but let's hope that changes. You are right that I overestimated the immediate potential of the opportunity. This is the bit that threw me off. I interpreted "accept" in a different way. You mean, only parents who at least acknowledge their childhood trauma would want this service, and I agree. I read it as, if they used the service, they would be enabling sadis or something like that. I lacked context, I guess.