labmath2

7. UPB= a methodology that validates or invalidates theories that intend to apply to all humans through the measurement of the relation of preferences to behaviors through rational means. This is the most complex so far. can it be simplified. The only thing your explanation puts forward is the test of contradiction and preference. I think the rape thing is an incorrect/misrepresenting idea. Let us assume the theory put forward is "Man should act in such a way as to maximize his own happiness." The contradiction test, suppose i prefer to have sex every night, consensual or otherwise, is there a contradiction? Rape certainly leads to less happiness for the victim, but the theory says nothing about my actions on other people's happiness. If she not being raped maximizes her happiness, the she should act in such a way as to prevent being raped. Assume i have a child, and what makes me happy is making her happy, that is also fine. However, the theory does not say people will be able to, or even act in such ways as to maximize their happiness.

A better way to to say it is math and scientific method are analytical tools or methods. It is a way for us to assess others work by all following one way of solving problems. They are not facts, but they are meant to provide a foundation for comparing and contrasting works. It is similar to language in that language also provides a foundation for communication and thought in a way that is common to a large population. Some languages have become less popular or extinct, but we can still communicate since we have different methods of communication that replaced those old ones. They are objective in the sense that they require common understanding of the rules and application for them to be of any real use, but are also subjective in that they are not facts.

Are models opinions? No, but they are not facts either. I will not say someone speaking French is wrong and someone speaking English is right. They are two separate models of communication. I am sorry that i do not possess the oratory skills to communicate this any better if this is still not clear to you.

So is that a yes or a no? People pointing lasers at airplanes is a problem today, so is that question more appropriate now?

Actually yes, the scientific method and math are not objective. They are models, they provide a framework for understanding the real world. In reality you never truly add two apples together, they are ways of conceptualizing and interacting with things in the real world. They are as real as language, which is also a model for conceptualizing thought and interacting with other people in the real world. Morality is an attempt to model what the ideal human behavior should look like, while the social sciences deal with models of what the human behavior does look like. Before the scientific method, people had less effective models of conceptualizing and interacting with the world. The reason i am having such difficult time with mixing of philosophy and science is that we can test science for its accuracy, we just see if it explains things in the real world better than any other theory. With philosophy, anything that contradicts the model is automatically added to the immoral category. That is not to say all moral theories are equal, libertarian principles if followed by everyone will most likely lead to a better society than the one we currently live in, but Stefan has fervently argued that consequences should be irrelevant in the assessment of moral theories. This leaves no real standard other than the one proposed by the philosopher himself/herself for measuring their success or failure. I would rather a world where we break every moral law and are all better off, than one where we all follow them and are worse off. To me, Morality is about determining that which results in the best outcome for man as an individual, and for man as a species.

Good is relative in the sense that it depends on some goal or some alternative state. A table is neither good nor bad since it does not exist relative to a goal or has an alternative state. Having only one arm is bad compared to having two arms, but having one arm is good compared to having none. Using the scientific method is good if you are trying to understand nature, but bad if you are trying to be a good christian. Getting a table is good if you want one, but bad if you have no place for it. Good and bad are value judgement and are completely depended on perception so i am pretty sure Good is a relative term. 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. Unless you use objective in the sense that it is the current best way to accomplish a task (as far as we know), then yes, it is objective. Or you use objective in a definition sense, i.e. no bachelor is married, then yes it is objective.

6. UPB= it's possible for everybody to do the behavior at the same time without any logical absurdities or making somebody immoral for not doing the thing. this is by far the most complex of the definitions. Contained in the definition is are two more terms that need to be explained namely, logical absurdities and immoral. Does this mean anything not universalizable is wrong relative to things that can be? What does the second statement "making somebody immoral for not doing the thing," mean? Does that mean someone can not be "immoral" for acting contrary to the defined action or does this mean not doing something does not count under UPB? Does this also mean it must be followed at all times and in all situations?

I could not agree more with that last statement. The only people who complain about their activities are those who feel compelled to do it for one reason or the other. To make motherhood seem like a pain in the butt is to make it seem like women are just being forced to do it.

When we get into why people act one way or the other, apart from direct cause and effect, we still have a long way to go to understand the way human minds work. Sometimes even people do not know why they do one thing or the other. Take the Milgram experiment or the asch conformity experiment where people placed in certain environments behave in a way that is different from their normal behaviors. Of course self-knowledge helps, but it can only help so much since we have instinct and compulsions that generally affect our actions.

If you are the kind of person who cannot learn from mistakes, you will not learn anything from his article. If you can learn from mistakes, then you will learn to avoid these kind of articles.

The distinction is an internal one. This is where intention comes into play. We can only measure how someone acts, we cannot measure why they act.

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

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

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.

After reading Stefan's book about UPB, i am so confused as to what it means, i have 3 working definitions. 1.UPB= Behavior that everybody prefers at all times and in all situations. 2.UPB= behavior that everybody should prefer at all times and in all situations. 3. A combination of 1 and 2 depending on the time and situation.

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.

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.

God is good, devil is evil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative its not that long, but it takes a while to get through it.

You must follow that theory to its logical conclusion for it to be either valid or invalid. IF everyone tries to kill everyone else, would such a world be possible? You can read the wikipedia post on it to get a sense of how he conceptualizes it.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."

The proposition before us is thus: can some preferences be objective, i.e. universal? When I say that some preferences may be objective, I do not mean that all people follow these preferences at all times. If I were to argue that breathing is an objective preference, I could be easily countered by the example of those who commit suicide by hanging themselves. If I were to argue that eating is an objective preference, my argument could be countered with examples of hunger strikes and anorexia. Thus when I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people should prefer, not what they always do prefer. To use a scientific analogy, to truly understand the universe, people should use the scientific method – this does not mean that they always do so, since clearly billions of people consult ancient fairy tales rather than modern science for “answers.” There is no way to achieve truth about the universe without science, but people are perfectly free to redefine “truth” as “error,” and content themselves with mystical nonsense. - Excerpt from Universally Preferable Behaviour A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics I have always operated under the assumption that Universally preferable behavior is a behavior that is preferred by all. After listening to the audio book i finally understand why i have had difficulty with the concept for so long since it would seem you needed to ask everyone if they preferred a behavior to put it in the UPB category. Now i understand that UPB is not about what people do prefer, but what people should prefer. My question is why should people prefer those behaviors and how do you know what people should prefer? When people make a should claim, they make it with the assumption that the person they are speaking to has an intended goal and they simply suggest the best way of achieving that goal. If i say you should eat good food and exercise, i assume you want to be healthy. To say the claim stands true even if you do not particularly care if you are healthy or not is false. I am posting this argument because i just found out what UPB means and a lot of people were using it as a falsification of Sam Harris' position.

Libertarian philsophy stems from property rights and the esence of evaluating this philosophy is to understand the meaning of ownership. Question 1: What is necessary for one to be a property owing agent and what is sufficient for one to be a property owning agent? In this category, my understanding is that what is necessary for one to be a property owing agent is for one to be human, and what is sufficient for one to be a property owing agent is for one to be a sane human (mentally healthy). I think this is the essence of the libertarian position, but i may be mistaken, so please correct me if i am wrong. QUestion 2: What is necessary for one to own something (for something to be considered one's property) and what is sufficient for one to own something? Here i can offer no real answer as i have yet to encounter an aswer since it seems to vary depending on the context of the discussion. I would like to get a clear, concise and universalizable anwser on this question.

Your next thesis that science is the only tool capable of discerning right from wrong is also incorrect. Logic and reason, based on first principles, are more accurate methods of verifying truth statements than scientific, or empirical, studies. 1+1=2 by definition, you don't need to test this theory out in the real world. Similarly, by definition, there are universally preferable behaviors. Having a flashlight pointed in your face is wrong, not because you can scientifically calculate the consequences of Having a flashlight pointed in your face, but because by definition Having a flashlight pointed in your face is a behavior which can not be universally preferable. That is to say, the minute you want "a flashlight pointed in your face" it is no longer Having a flashlight pointed in your face, but assisted screwing up of your vision. By definition, Having a flashlight pointed in your face is an act you don't prefer, and no one can ever prefer, and is thus immoral.

Sometimes they do not have to deal with customers since they hired workers to do that in their place, they simply manage.