SamuelS

The topic at hand is UPB, in this context preference is displayed in behavior. You can't be this thick, you are a troll and you'll get no more food from me.

In your basketball example, your preference to go (vs not, or anything else) was demonstrated in that it was the course of action you took.

You are equivocating, preference in this context is demonstrated in the behavior.

And what value comes from that? It certainly helps you avoid hypocrisy if you can put yourself in another moral category. But there must be some non-arbitrary fundamental distinction between members of one moral class and another...how do you propose that be dealt with? Maybe we put on a funny hat and give one another permission to murder? Sounds like the state. I'm still wondering about an example of when a person has one preference and the opposite preference, at the same time.

Bandwagon fallacies and social contract theory have nothing to do w UPB...social contract theory breaks universality, unless everyone can charge everyone for everything at which point it becomes meaningless as we all furiously send out bills cancelling those we've received. Do you even have a position to defend, or is the mere fact that "arguments could be made" enough to sustain you?

Any negative action, or refraining from doing an action, is UPB but not necessarily moral/ethics. Remember, ethics is just a subset of UPB. "Thou shall not wear blue" is a UPB-compliant rule, just nothing to do w morality.

At a time when the availability of a multitude of birth control methods is near universally available it seems absurd to me that all possible scenarios can't just be agreed to ahead of time, in writing, and legally enforced (a la Cherry 2000.) Its really only the enforcement that can't be done and that's because the state won't allow it. Enforcement doesn't have to mean forcing a woman to have (or not have) an abortion if she's reconsiderred either, but it would kick off a series of pre-arranged contingencies such as the assumption of liability. This is already done with contracts in nearly every other area of life, why not this one? It upsets women, for one, and we can't have that, oh no. And the state likes the status quo, it works quite well for them.

Perhaps you should read the forum guidelines and Google the term "passive aggressive." Doesn't sound like a mere restatement of your contention. I'm not an admin or anything to be clear, just reading the thread and pointing things out. If you can conceive of a reality in which somebody's preference is the opposite of their preference in the same moment, you'll have an argument that has something to do w UPB, until then you're just pissing in the wind.

I think this word is important within the realm of morality. I think that moral relativism is an attempt to invalidate the entire notion of hypocrisy and evil so that people can excuse their unjust actions. This conversation goes one further by playing word games to obfuscate meanig to the point that there is none. Even the flagpole scenario is easy, you ask what's the harm and how would you react and you god damn well jump and hope the guy doesn't shoot you because he would be justified in doing so, and you hope he asks himself the same and doesn't shoot because he's not an asshole. It really isn't that difficult.

UPB does answer the doctor thing - there are no unchosen obligations. If a doctor obliges himself as a standard of practice that has nothing to do with UPB in the realm of ethics. It may fall under "aesthetically preferable", but....let me ask you, could you justify shooting the doctor for not treating the patient?

If that is true, you should have no trouble finding and illustrating such "walls"/paradoxes/"problematic possibilities" w regard to a theory of morality that conforms to UPB.

None of this negates the law of non contradiction, if something is "true" in one system and "false" in another that just means you're not unifying the language in such a way as to have meaningful discourse.

A distinction without a difference. I don't think so. First, I have to say I find it funny that in another post you're talking about how we use language and meaning and that...and here you've made a huge mistake in language and meaning in characterizing the argument -- it is not preferrED, but preferABLE, that behavior which it is possible (logically) to universalize, not that behavior which is universal. Logic is not valid because it is logical, it is valid because it conforms to reality. I agree. I would also say that those things we take for granted are things we might want to examine first... UPB is a valid methodology, whether or not it's useful is another question and what, if anything, it has to do w ethics is yet another (one I haven't figured out myself.) As an aside from the main topic, you come across, to me, as belligerent toward the topic and the community. You may want to consider that as having something to do with the conflict/downvotes you're getting -- as it is you're setting up a self-fulfilling prophesy (FDR people are not open to [your] criticism) -- at least that's an aspect of the interaction that is in your control.

You failed to communicate why you think this should even be important until three days into the conversation. You ended your first post with the cocksure mic drop...three days in and you've demonstrated no curiosity about the responses but rather have gotten passive aggressive and condescended to the participants as though they're insolent children. But yeah, we're the jerks. If you feel we're all such dullards, perhaps you could be so kind as to explain it like we are, as it is you're saying "I can't believe you idiots don't understand this complex argument.", which is not only insulting but insane.

I don't know that it gets you any closer if paraconsistent logic is a subset of logic and using logic is UPB...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States

"at some point" also breaks universality, to be universal all rules would have an implicit "at all times"...Which is why any proscription doesn't work, because if you're sleeping you're probably not murdering or eating fish or beating your slaves or whatever else you're commanded to do. I can always not act in a given way, I cannot always act in a given way (especially if I'm unconscious.)

I don't think I communicated very well above w the hugger. I think aggression (and thus defense) has something to do w your ability to avoid it...right? If so, that example should be more specific, like the person has wrapped their arms around you despite your protests or otherwise " unfriendly " reaction...not the best example but I hope it illustrates the idea. Also, I'm not clear how UPB justifies defense, my assertion that the attacker is consenting has worked rhetorically but I don't know if that's the argument put forward in UPB and I should have said that above. To be honest I've not put much critical thought toward defense as I've taken it as a given for so long.

the only other podcast I listen to regularly is Tom Woods, and I check foundmyfitness.com once in a while to see if Dr. Patrick has anything that interests me. I tried listening to Dan Carlin, I just don't care one whiff about the topics he discusses. I'm bookmarking this thread though, looks like lots of resources linked.

I was an INTJ once, two weeks later I was ISFJ...something stinks about that test, that aside I'd happily answer the poll to help w/ your data collection efforts, but I can't so maybe you can sort this out manually...I'm also quite "K" (if it's of any interest to you, my father is quite K and my mother is quite r)

what does law have to do w/ UPB? Well, no...I don't think it's that clear cut though. The question one might ask is "what's the harm" (in [not] acting). I'm not sure if this is still anything to do w/ UPB though, and this isn't my thread so I'm a bit leery of dragging it off topic...also, my definition above might be better expressed if "without that other's consent" is changed to "against that other's preference" regarding the three scenarios, and remember there are not positive obligations (you have no duty to act): 1 & 3 - what's the harm? irrevocable. in this case, the harm of not acting is infinitely greater than the harm of acting. if you stop the man and ascertain that he does indeed wish to die, he can still do that. conversely, if you do not stop him, his death cannot be reversed. 2 - I have two ways to look at this, one the assaulter consented to your defense by initiating the attack (UPB) and the other is Kant's categorical imperative aka the golden rule (deontological.) This idea of "what's the harm" can come into play a lot, I think, in our daily lives. For example, some people are really "huggy", instead of shaking your hand when they meet you, they'll give you a hug. If I meet one of these people, and they immediately try to hug me, I could take this to be an assault or attempted kidnapping and punch them in the nose and frankly I don't think there's a rational moralist out there that could argue I was wrong to do so. But, what's the harm? If I do punch her, at best I'm not going to make a lot of friends. If I don't punch her, I can still defend myself if the need arises.

But it isn't murder at all if the victim wants it. Lovemaking doesn't become rape just because there's a jealous 3rd party.

Rob, I just listened to this call and wanted to share some thoughts before they escape me. Great call, btw, really got me thinking! Regarding the "two men in a room" and murder confusion, Stef pointed out the distinction that UPB addresses moral theories rather than actions, and I think this is a great example of this common confusion people have about UPB and rather than avoiding it altogether I think it could be used to illustrate what UPB is and what it is not...because two men CAN murder one another, imagine a simultaneous Han Solo wherein each person shoots the other without any indication he's about to do it, they're both murderers, but that's not what UPB is about. In the case of murder the Universality is broken because to be murder the victim has to not want it, not because we can't all kill one another simultaneously and constantly. As to why UPB has anything to do w/ ethics, that's one I haven't quite resolved, because that's certainly not how ethics have been used around me throughout my life. I think the notion of "hypocrisy" may help get there, but I don't know. I know plenty of people in the "might makes right" moral subjectivism camp (they'll even say that slavery was perfectly moral in 1800!) but I think if they were honest they'd have to respond "no" if you ever asked "is that true?" I suppose one could say that the only consistent moral theories are those that comply w/ UPB, that the only way not to be a hypocrite is to support and conform to UPB. That the only arguments against it employ it. But what of those "might makes right" types? Many seem perfectly alright with hypocrisy, openly mocking anybody that expects them to hold themselves to the same standards they expect of others. Do we just...leave them out of the conversation?

Neither of those. I can consent to your killing me while finding it distasteful and hurtful and it's not murder because I consent. Here's the single sentence catch-all UPB-compliant moral rule I've come up w -- thou shall not act on the (person or) property of another without that other's consent. So it's not a subjective "I like dying" thing, its an objective "I consent to my property being acted upon in this manner" thing.

I find your post rather hard to follow, perhaps it's just that it's early. I would say -- murder isn't UPB because definitionally murder is not wanted by the victim and demonstrably is wanted by the perpetrator. Change murder to assisted suicide and preferences align, victims and perpetrators become collaborators.