farnoud

I agree with what you're saying. This is why I started this thread by asking how can we establish actions regarding the use of force can't be morally neutral. What I mean by objective and subjective are universal and the opposite of it. Even Stefan referred to universal as objective in his book if I'm not mistaken. So, basically, I'm arguing in order to universalize these type of behaviors, we need to demonstrate why not universalizing them is logically inconsistent. Keep in mind I, don't see a problem with people deciding to universalize it because I don't see any logical inconsistency in it; however, if not universalizing it also can be logically consistent, how the society functions regarding these issues becomes subjected to the view of the majority or the strongest group of the people within that society. I agree

This use of the concept of morality is still within the traditional (old, or whatever you want to call it!) form. Don't get me wrong! I'm not saying morality is a meaningless word. The word carries an understandable concept, but I think we should be careful and not use the two terms, 'morality' and 'UPB' interchangeably. We need to make a distinction between 'subjective' and 'objective' preferences. I understand that in any case of the use of force there is a conflict of interest, but in order to be able to apply UPB to it, we need to establish why considering those preferences to be subjective is logically inconsistent.

Well, because we're trying to redefine what morality is, and now that we are replacing the traditional/mystical forms of morality with UPB, it becomes essential that we first establish why using force is a matter of "morality", or better to say, UPB.

Well, what I mean is for instance if someone who believes in communism and his ultimate goal is to bring equality (equity of outcome) to the maximum number of people possible even at the price of mass starvation, I can't try to change his mind by relying on logical means. If some people prefer communism because of propaganda I could still try to change their mind by exposing the propaganda, but now I can't just argue communism or socialism are immoral like the way Stefan does in his podcasts which would be much easier because trying to expose the propaganda can really become challenging.

Just because there is a behavioral distinction between listening to jazz and rape doesn't mean either one of them has to be a moral issue. I have already attempted three times to explain where I can't follow your logic and you just repeated the same question. If we can't agree on where you haven't provided sufficient proof for your argument we can't really continue with the conversation.

You can't just claim this. How do you justify it? If you're happy with your argument I'm happy for you! Just ignore me. The reason I started the conversation was with the hope that someone could convince me of the practicability of UPB (still hoping!), because I think not having anything to rely on when it comes to how humans interact with each other can make you completely passive or else you can't expect anyone to listen to you which kills my motivation.

But people can still have their individually subjective preferences, and there can be conflicts between those interests. I don't see why having a conflict of interests between the individuals has to be considered a logical inconsistency.

I understand that a world where everyone should treat rape as evil is going to be logically consistent, but what I'm thinking is that it's not the only logically consistent way of living. I can't find a logical inconsistency in a world where people put no moral value on the act of rape. What I'm trying to say is that first you have to establish why we have to evaluate the act of rape by looking into UPB (why does it have to be a moral issue?) or else you can't argue that it can't be morally neutral.

I don't recall Stefan arguing anywhere in the book that if any preference is violently enforced on someone else it has to fall into the realm of UPB. That's where I'm having trouble connecting the dots as to why violently inflicting a preference on others is in contradiction with it being morally neutral. Can you elaborate some more?

Can you explain more why considering that the enforcement of a preference on someone to be morally neutral can't logically stand? It's not self-evident to me and it is at the root of my problem.

What the way Stefan argued for the existence of UPB tells us is that there exists some human behaviors that can't be based on subjective preferences and that doesn't mean that there can't be any human behavior that can't be based on subjective preferences. So, I can't agree that the morally neutral category includes "ALL" the actions based on subjective preference that have no imposed effect on other people. There can be some actions with than nature in the category. Imagine a world in which the only two human behaviors while interacting with each other are 1)Whether to follow the non-contradiction principle while arguing with one another and 2)Whether to rape or not. Stefan argued for the existence for UPB which I already told you I've accepted. But the problem is I don't find UPB to be self sufficient in a way that could clarify what this set of universally preferable behaviors is. We just know it can't be an empty set. Is it that we should only follow the non-contradiction principle while arguing with each other? Is it that we should only not rape anyone while interacting with each other? Or is it both? I can't explain my problem any simpler than this.

And my question initially was how can we establish that if someone enforces a preference upon others against their will, must be considered immoral. From my understanding you're assuming that I've accepted this to be valid, but that's what I'm having trouble with. So so far we've proven that considering rape to be morally good, is logically inconsistent and considering it to be evil can be a universally preferred behavior. What I'm saying is that considering rape to be morally neutral also seem to pass the test of consistency. I can't see how considering rape to be morally neutral would be illogical.

This is exactly where I can't follow the logic anymore. I know that it is not logically possible for everyone to universally prefer rape, but I don't know how from this we conclude that it can't be morally neutral.

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf#page=70

All right! Maybe it is. I just wanted to point out that I can't see how we can infer that something can't be morally neutral from it not being universally preferable. I can't think of an example of something that's not universally preferable and we can agree is not immoral. I understand that a preference is being forced upon some else, and of course it comes with its effects. I don't see how a behavior involving more than one actor can naturally be dismissed as being a neutral moral act. I take back the ice cream example.

Have you read my original post? I explained how I think it is insufficient. I agree that it can't be universally preferable, but just because something can't be universally preferable doesn't mean it has to be a moral issue. Eating ice cream also can't be universally preferable, but that doesn't make it immoral.

I have accepted Stefan's argument on the existence of UPB, so I do believe there exists an objective form of morality but its nature is still unknown to a great degree. Valuing truth over falsehood can be an example of a UPB. My problem is I can't see how we can decide actions like rape, murder, ect. would not fall into the morally neutral category.

Can you explain why one should follow the non-aggression principle by relying on UPB? I'm not trying to encourage anyone to become a rapist and I'm well aware that it has negative effects on the victim. All I'm trying to figure out is whether UPB is a reliable moral system.

All I'm arguing is the validity of UPB... What I think has no effect on the validity of the argument and what you're asking is exactly my problem with UPB at this moment. It doesn't provide a way in which you could distinguish whether something is morally neutral or not.

In part two of the book (Application) when Stefan is testing the moral value of rape against the 7 different categories, he dismisses the notion that rape can be considered morally neutral by stating that it is a preference enforced upon someone; however, to my knowledge he never stablished why an action that is enforced upon someone can't be morally neutral. I find this to be a breach in the practicability of UPB. Can anyone explain why a preference enforced upon another human being can't be morally neutral?