Integral Paradox

I disagree with the coma test, since I don't see how not doing a moral action is immoral, or how not acting immorally is moral. Non-actions cannot have moral content, since they are by definition contentless. Why not say "though shalt only have sex that is consentual"? It's a positive proposition that implicity bans rape. Please explain how these two quotes aren't contradictory when it comes to how he defines moral opposites. In the first, opposite = negation. In the second, moral opposite = action, not negation. "Clearly, if I proclaim that “X” is “the good,” then the opposite of “X” must be evil. If not raping is good, then raping must be evil." "The mugger who stabs you, however, is initiating an attack upon your life and health, which is why his attack is the moral opposite of the surgeon's efforts." Also wondering what your thoughts are to point #3.

Pg 66: ^ That's the logic I'm arguing against. Stef had it right with the mugger and the surgeon. Those are real opposites. 2. "Epistemic objectivity" sounds like a contradiction to me, but it seems like we're basically in agreement as to why it may seem that way. 3. It's up to Stef to provide a criteria as to how a person can be labeled moral or immoral, or good or evil since it's part of his premise here (unless he's just being hypothetical about the premise to respond to 'government is necessary' arguments). As to how I would define it, how evil or immoral someone is can be measured by how much pain they've caused others through intellectual, emotional, or physical abuse. How good or moral someone is can be measured by how much suffering you've prevented in others through wisdom, compassion, and bravery. The question is, once we've establish the criteria for a dichotomy at all, how do we go about sorting through where an individual ought to be placed within it? I don't think we can. As Steph has pointed out, even Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr were complex individuals, as we all are. A theoretical spectrum exists, but I don't think anyone has the ability to calculate where an individual fits within it to any meaningful degree of accuracy.

1. Thanks for the clip, though I'm not sure it really addresses my point. I agree that all rules that should be enforced have to be stated through negation, or "ough not", but I don't see how what is not immoral is automatically moral. I'm proposing that immoral actions have opposites that can be initiated, and on page 53, Stef actually agrees with me: 2. The universe exists no matter how much we analyze it. It will continue to behave the way it does whether we believe in believe in gravity or believe in invisible spirits that make objects fall to the floor. Obviously the theory, or understanding of gravity reflects the objective external world better than anything supernatural, but the keyword is "reflect." Without minds, there is still an objective universe out there (otherwise we're forced to become idealists), but this universe operates regardless of our beliefs, or even knowledge, which we hold subjectively, or intersubjectively. But I think it comes down to the two definition of "objective." If we mean "without influence from feelings or emotions" then sure, science is objective, but if we definite it as "not dependent on the mind for existence," then science, logic, and rationality by definition, is not objective, since it requires the existance of the observer. 3. True, UPB only applies to moral propositions, not behaviors. However, my point still stands that Stef didn't give a criteria for determining the existence of good or evil people. He had the burden of proof to show that morality is a valid field of science, and he succeeded. However, an advocate of every element of UPB has the burden of proof to clearly define what a good person is and what an evil person is. Why was Vlad the Impaler evil? Was it because he killed people (behavior), or because his actions were based on an irrational belief system? If it's the behavior itself, then is someone who orders genocide is not evil, if they're not doing the killing with their own hands?

Hey guys, I'm new to forum, looking forward to being part of the FDR community. I've been a huge fan of Stefan's youtube channel for a while, and I feel he's one of the most logically accute philosophers out there. I just read UPB, and I agree with most of its premises, and its conclusion about the hypocrisy of government. I do think there is room for improvement though. Now I've read through a lot of the other threads here dealing with UPB, so let me state that I'm not trying to refute UPB as a whole. I acknowledge I am indeed using UPB to try to fix some of the details. 1) The first is the common objection about negation vs opposite. As has been pointed out by others, the opposite of an immoral action can't be the refraining from it, just like the opposite of a moral action can't be refraining from it. Otherwise neutral actions like me watching TV or picking my nose would be both moral and immoral. I propose that opposite of an immoral behavior would be a moral action (not non-action) that has a universally prefered outcome. The opposite of murder (non-consensually taking a life) would be saving a life. The opposite of rape is consentual sex. The opposite of breaking someone's rib is mending their rib. The opposite of giving people information that separates them from truth (lying) is giving them information that better connects them to truth (education). The opposite of taking property that someone values without their consent (theft), is giving away something of yours that the other person values. The opposite of being neglectful to those who need your care, is being attentive to those who need it. Therefore someone who does none of the above can't be moral or immoral. 2) Another premise I feel is somewhat logically flawed is the idea that scientific theories are objective. You look under a microscope or into a telescope, and we won't find any scientific theories or math equations. Theories, and rationality itself exist in our minds in order to better predict the behavior of the objective, external world. Now I agree that UPB is a valid science, but I think a better term is "intersubjective" since it deals with shared, rational ought issues, which are held within a multitude of subjective minds. If I stare at the box of tissues that is in front of me, then close my eyes and visualize it, it is not an "objective" image. What is in one person's imagination cannot be measured or observed. All content, including images, theories, symbols, concepts, and predictions in my imagination are subjective, no matter how well they reflect the external world, otherwise "subjective" only refers to aesthetics. This doesn't alter the framework of UPB however, and it is not a critique of the scientific method, it's just a critique regarding terminology. 3) On page 107, in the chapter "THE NECESSITY OF THE STATE?" Stefan uses this simplistic black and white way of referring to people as "good" or "evil." Even though we can define what moral and immoral behaviors might be, he fails to define what it means to be either a good or evil person. How many times does a person have to do something immoral to do be considered evil? Is there no room for complexity of character? I'm really surprised someone as intellegent as Stefan would use such simplistic rhetoric. It's called UPB for a reason, which is that it refers to behavior, not types of people. It's almost as bad as someone saying either you're a sinner or a saint. I agree that the necessity of government is morally hypocritical, but you can arrive at this by critiquing actions without putting people into two absolutistic "either/or" categories. Looking forward to hearing what you guys think.