Nick900

I don't autistically screech, I emit a loud pitched-tone with pride. Thanks for the link tho

I would say I only donated because of its presence ... At the start of it all, I needed somewhere less formal to ask the 'stupid' questions and have the kind of back-and-forth you don't get and isn't appropriate in a forum. As for the amount of work, it takes very little, I've set them up myself. As for monitoring it, you don't. Mod a few trusted people and you're golden. As for the relatively small amount of people, well perhaps they didn't use it much, but I certainly saw a lot of people use it for a short amount of time in the fashion I described above. It's not a technically challenging piece of software, expensive or troublesome, it's just a standard feature for discussion forums. At the VERY LEAST, setup an official discord or something and make the link available to everyone so we have a place to chat.

Very strange in 2017 to be removing the chat functionality ...

Whenever someone says that they are agnostic it causes a short circuit in my brain - how can you rationally make the statement that God might exist? It's preferable that theories about reality should be true and so validity and accuracy is required. Since the concept God is inherently contradictory it fails validity and since we haven't observed God in reality it fails accuracy (also it's the complete negation of everything we can observe). So based on this, are we justified in saying that one ought not to make the argument "God might exist"?

But it's only enforceable because you decide it's enforceable, likewise we decide choice of language isn't enforceable ... but it could be, if we wanted it. You've made up a rule called NAP which states that if aggresses against you physically, you are allowed to use force back. But why not say, if someone speaks to you in another language, you get to enforce your language on them? - To me, the only difference is that we have culturally decided one is fair and the other is not. By your standard of UPB/NAP you can rule it immoral but it's still relative to UPB/NAP right?

In what ways is morality different from language? It is universally preferable IF one wants to communicate effectively to use the same language. It is universally preferable IF one wants to make any sense that you abide by the rules of the language. You do not need to use the language, there are many you may choose from. If you use a different language, nobody will use violence against you. Is morality any more binding than language, or is it just a useful convention people may or may not adopt to aid in our mutual survival? Why am I asking? - Well, if it's just a convention like language, an intellectual challenge or cultural norm, I would use it if it benefitted me (e.g., to get along with others), but I wouldn't act morally if it was to my disadvantage ... making morality loses any power it once had. I've read many of the "why be moral?" posts but I'm still unconvinced, perhaps a more focused comparative approach may work?

Ok, so much like the scientific method thinks up scientific theories, we think up a moral idea, we use UPB to validate that it's rational, logical and consistent - do we then consider it objective? At this point, we only have an idea that we know is rational, logical and consistent - how do you get people to abide by it? If people want to abide by the rule, they will, if they don't, they won't. It's not binding in the same way gravity is. You won't have a hard time convincing people it's a bad idea to murder but even if your moral theory of theft for example is rational, logical and consistent, most people don't really care when they are downloading music off piratebay. I'm just left thinking that you've proved your moral idea is rational, logical and consistent - what's next?

So could it be said that IF you have a preference to think about moral ideas, and IF you have a preference for those moral ideas to be rational, logical and consistent, then UPB is the best framework for validated said ideas? and regardless of if people follow it, agree with it, value or care about it - UPB is just a really cool framework for thinking logically about moral ideas? Likewise, IF you have a preference to think about moral ideas, and IF you have a preference for those moral ideas to be irrational, illogical and inconsistent, then religion is the best framework for daydreaming about said ideas? and regardless of if people follow it, agree with it, value or care about it - religion is just a really cool framework for thinking illogically about moral ideas? Unless you can say being logically consistent is objective? Then you can say UBP = objective, religion = subjective. However the gap from subjective to objective is a big one, and I'm not sure that UPB makes it. UPB seems more like subjectivity masquerading as objectivity by trying to be as similar as possible to get some of its binding powers (Just thinking out loud ...)

This is my problem with it, even if everyone agrees, I don't see how that makes it objective or binding. I can see how it's culturally relative or democratic or something but I don't understand how a preference could ever said to be objective? Pointing out that your preference has logically consistent parallels with objective reality doesn't make it objective. Don't get me wrong, the only two ways to convince me to abide by your preference is to be logically consistent and rational or use force but that's only because I have a preference for logic, many don't. In the market place of moral theories UPB wins, however, the concept of morality appears to be no more than an opinion. I personally want my opinions to be logically consistent, but so what? It's all just subjective preference, not objective, not binding (I think?)

You're the one defining immorality, it just appears to be a negative judgement of someones actions. I do not see how this makes it objective though, sure a moral judgement might be logically consistent and it might be able to be made into a universal rule, but so what? Stating that murder is immoral under UPB says nothing but you think murder is bad and you are internally consistent in that belief. It's still just your subjective opinion of the action.

I just finished reading through the UPB book, it was thoroughly enjoyable but I have a few comments, concerns and questions. First of all, to me, UPB felt more generalised than a "rational proof of secular ethics", it felt more like the correct application of logic to moral statements and I finished the book still unconvinced that ethics is anything more than just personal preference. The first concern I had was that it all seems very theoretical in the sense that it's a great tool for using in debates where both parties accept universal principles. If both parties accept universal principles have to apply to everyone without exception regardless of costume, race, location, etc ... then it's a great logical tool for validating theories. For example, if someone puts forward the theory it's moral for soldiers to kill, UPB is great for shooting that down in a debate where logical consistency is required. However, I wasn't quite convinced when moral rules were being proposed instead of refuted. For example, on page 121 (Lulu paperback version) murder gets defined as "killing intentionally and with premeditation, not in self-defence" which defines murder in such a way that it has to be a moral evil. UPB is about abstract principles and not individual instances, for example, it says that when a soldier puts on a uniform, the uniform cannot change the moral nature of the man. The principle being put forward here is that UPB has to be applied to the abstract concept "man" and not "man in a uniform". With the definition of murder as killing with premeditation and not in self-defence, UPB isn't being applied to the abstract concept "killing" but instead killing in a particular circumstance. Is this not comparable to the soldier and the uniform? If UPB is all about analysing concepts in the abstract, should we not be asking is just plain old "killing" immoral without the caveats? In the above example, it seems that UPB is only applied to instances where by definition the act is considered wrong. For instance, applying UPB to rape is no great feat since rape is already defined as "bad" or "evil". We already know rape is unwanted because it's defined as unwanted. Likewise trying to show that fraud is considered evil in UPB is pointless since it's considered unwanted by definition. I fully see the benefit of UPB in combating false moral theories but I don't see how it takes the place as the correct moral theory. As I said earlier, it seems to just be the correct application of logic to moral situations. However, throwing around the "moral" tag seems to be somewhat pointless. Showing that someone is internal consistent is great, I can see the immediate value in that, but labelling something immoral seems like a waste of time. It seems to be a secret handshake used by people who have come to the same conclusions - you both agree that X is immoral and you don't like it, therefore, you can both get along together happily. But are "moral" and "immoral" not just labels used to express preference for what you find acceptable behaviour to be? To be clear, I think UPB is a great book, it will do wonders in combating false moral systems, but I'm still not convinced about use the use of moral labelling. Does labelling something immoral have any more power other than to express your dislike of something? Is UPB anything more than taking your personal preferences and putting them forward as universal and logically consistent statements for consumption?

I think you hit the nail on the head there, it is my parents who said this (the majority of the original post was with them in mind). This has happened a few times before and I can remember thinking "well you could read a book, watch a TV program, ask me about it, look on the internet ..." to learn something about anything other than trivialities, but they don't. I was listening to an old podcast #1003 and Stef flipped the no obligation argument on its head making the point that expecting our parents to take an interest is futile because there is no relationship there. Whereas it's often there's no obligation from child to parent, it's the same in the other direction. I don't particularly like/love them, they are 'ok', not terrible by any stretch, but boring. I guess I was thinking that if I could get them interested it would turn into a great relationship, but perhaps the time is better spent finding people closer to the standard rather than trying to change my parents. I don't have the compulsion to 'educate' every random person in the street on logic / relationships / etc, I guess I shouldn't have it for my parents either.

I've not had much success engaging them, it always feels more like a lecture since I'll begin with my bit and they'll squirm through it with "maybes" and generalities however it always feels like a one sided conversation that is usually over quickly. Whereas in a good conversation there would be back and forth questioning and a discussion, usually in the case of my parents it'll be my monologue followed by their monologue which will switch the topic and then it's over. In this case the "we can't all be clever" bit to end the conversation like you said. To answer the other two questions, what was going on for me and why is it important to talk about stuff other than trivialities - well I was getting increasingly frustrated and bored during the conversation we were having (if it can be called that I may as well have not been there, a mirror could have played my part). I have a strong feeling my parents are not happy in the way they live their lives, my mother in particular does the whole running around after her mother thing. Part of me wants to wake her up to the miserable life that she's living, perhaps by getting her interested in deeper topics? With other people like my brother + some friends, I have absolutely no desire to talk to them about this stuff because I know they are not interested in it, I'm not entirely sure why I'm pushing it with my parents.

I find myself getting increasingly frustrated at trivial conversations about things I don't deem to be important. For example, someone telling me about a cake they bought or the fact they are redecorating part of their house a brighter shade of white. These topics seem to make me disproportionately frustrated and even angry at the fact they are the only conversations the people in question seem capable of having. Whenever I confront them on it or try to change the topic to something more in depth I usually get the "we can't all be clever" which further frustrates me because you don't need to be a genius to talk about something other than trivialities. I don't have a problem talking non-philosophically-in-depth with some people, e.g. Valued friends but others, e.g. Unvalued friends and family I have no patience with. The question that comes to my mind while writing this is "why am I still talking to these people if I'm getting nothing of value from them?" And "am I right in trying to change people?" And "am I just using philosophy as a stick to beat people?"

I'm not sure that I am, I think I just have an emotional preference for reason and evidence over chaos. It makes me feel smart.