Lykourgos

I don't think you understand the distinction between a moral system and a logical system. Anybody can posit a logically valid system that deals with moral actors and their behaviour, but it is another thing to take the next step and explain why the system should be obeyed above all others. The true system of morality will of course be valid, but so will many false systems of morality. On a personal note, you continue to fumble with the idea of "valid" and "sound". "God said it's good" can be a perfectly valid statement. Whether it's factually correct is a matter of soundness. If you have a logical reason why "God said it's good" is necessarily invalid, please present it. If all you have is, "well, another person can deny that it is true that god said that!" then weep, for you are irredeemably ignorant. I ask because I want to know how you are using the term; I am having this discussion with you, not the book. Even if you made up a brand new definition for the term, it wouldn't matter; I would go along with it. I just need to know what you mean, and the UPB is no help because it is an incoherent mess. I understand what justification means, and we've gone over this a thousand times. You argue that because one person can say God isn't real, therefore God's rules are somehow logically invalid. It's absurd, because the existence of God and the rules is a factual dispute. In terms of what is arbitrary, that doesn't necessitate that there is contradiction in the logic. In fact, divine pronouncements are not necessarily arbitrary. The rules may follow from the inherent nature of God or reality; that is no more arbitrary than existence itself is arbitrary. I was asked for a valid account, and I provided it. You lot claim to have the true account, but you've been doing an awfully good job of disguising it.

not necessarily

Great insult, is that all you've got? It doesn't respond to the logical inconsistency:

For the millionth time, how is your system moral rather than logical? You're just piling on synonym after synonym, you're talking about good and evil but refusing to admit it or explain it! Now it's "legitimately" and, by extension, "illegitimately"! How is your moral system moral, rather than strictly logical? What makes it legitimate, to borrow your new disguise, as opposed to valid? There are multiple definitions in the UPB text, so your idea that the term is self-explanatory is just flat-out wrong. That's not really a clear account of "prefer", are you using it as a synonym of "might"? Like, "If you want to achieve this goal, you might do b"? As for universal, do you have an example of something? When are you going to relate the term back to the NAP and morality? I still haven't a clue what you mean by "morality" beyond something being logically valid or invalid. As for "human behaviour", are you saying that actions and people are not subject to moral judgments? It's just conceptions of human behaviour, like "rape is wrong", but individual acts of rape and rapists are not subject to judgement? No idea what you are trying to achieve here. You have to give the justification if you want to establish something in the discussion, but telling you that doesn't prove your mysterious views on morality, the NAP, or UPB. If you want to show there is UPB, just explain what the term even means. If you want to show that UPB is the basis of morality, or has some sort of relationship to that term, then take the next step and relate them. This is unbelievable, you still do not understand the difference between valid and sound! The statements are valid if they are logical; the premises are assumed to be true. The statements are sound if the premises are true. You ADMIT that they are valid... and then say they're not justified! But when you say justified, it's just a synonym for sound... you're clinging to your argument about soundness, and disguising it with a new word. Your argument that "there is no god" is not an attack on validity at all. You want to show that something is not valid? Show the logical inconsistency, not attack whether the premise is factually correct. You want to know how my system can be logically justified? Because God is real. The premise is assumed for purposes of logic. Do you have a logical argument that shows my claims to be invalid? Because if you don't, then we're done; I answered your challenge and gave a valid, but unsound, account of morality. In fact, I did more than you did: I actually gave an account of morality rather than logic.

No they don't, but let's stop beating around the bush. If you have an issue with a previous comment about rape, or there's some other context to this, please just explain your point. At the very least, if this is about rape then I should point out that rape and kissing have two different mens rea. But this is pointless until I know what you're actually arguing against or trying to show. Hmm sounds legit. No, that's not the issue, I can understand mutual consent. What I don't understand is how people are using consent to define good in their "objective" moral system. Just quoting you so you can see my previous response; this forum is strange in that posts will be submitted for review for a few days, whereupon the tread continues on and the posts are old and forgotten by the time they display. Don't be an ass; I'm responding to RCali's hyperbolic appeal to authority, not trying to denigrate Molyneux. I am happy to be here, and I'm happy to discuss philosophy on or off the FDR show. However, the idea that the UPB text or its author represents some sort of recognised high-point in philosophy is laughable. Appeals to authority are not going to prove anything here.

You are maintaining the position that violations of the NAP are immoral, so how are you going to do that without judgements of good and evil? If you are refusing to do that, then I need to know how your morality is anything more than a set of logical statements. Right now "right" and "wrong" are being used as logical terms, synonymous with valid and invalid. I want to see how you get to morality; your distaste for the words "good" and "evil" is ultimately pointless, because you're positing something more than mere logically consistent statements. Saying "morality deals with enforceable behaviour" doesn't answer that, but at least it's a step in the right direction. What do you mean by enforceable behaviour? Also, what is the subject of morality, people or physical motion? Theft is another can of worms because I know that libertarians have their own arguments for property rights. It's yet another issue that I think people here are wrong on. It's astounding that 3 pages in, not a single person is able or willing to define what they mean by "universally preferable behaviour". Even the text gives multiple definitions. As for whether I am implicitly putting forward UPB, that's something you'd have to show. Simply saying it doesn't make it true, and even if it were true you would need to relate it back to the fundamental topic of this thread. No, you did not rebut my valid justification for rape. You merely demonstrated that you did not appreciate the difference between something being valid, and something being sound. If you still don't understand, then let's revisit that topic. Do you understand that a statement can be valid, but unsound? That means that it is logical, but ultimately false. For example, I could posit: All birds can fly Ostriches are birds Therefore ostriches can fly It's valid but unsound. Similarly, I posited an example of morality that was valid. You have been arguing that it's unsound. Therefore, your objections relate to the separate issue of soundness, and are irrelevant.

That is the most twisted misrepresentation of the steps I've ever seen. Here's a reminder of what step 1 says: "1) An act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action (i.e sex isn't rape if there's consent)" It word-for-word states that an act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action: "A is not B if there is C". So, let's order it and run a test, A with C is not B. A is an action, here we'll use rape. Does it have C? Yes, the moving party consents. Therefore, rape is not aggression. Then step two comes along, 2) Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions, an action cannot be considered consensual if one of the parties doesn't consent. So, an act is aggression if any party doesn't consent. A is B if anyone lacks C. A without everyone feeling C is B Let's take A to be rape Does everyone have C? No, at least one party lacks C. Therefore A is B. These are inconsistent. Now let's glance at your bizarre rendering of the steps: "For something not to be aggression, there must be consent. And there must be consent from both moral agents, or, the two parties." You've changed the steps. In your first sentence, you are saying that if there is C, A might not be B. Not that it necessarily is, but that it might be. You have changed the steps, and your second sentence makes the first sentence completely superfluous; there must be C from all parties for A not to be B. Sentence 1, the altered step 1, is a meaningless observation derived from sentence 2. Do you want to rewrite the steps this way? Or did you intend to take the actual steps as they are, and somehow try to show that they are consistent? As it is, you've just quietly changed the steps while refusing to admit that they were problematic. I've proven that people around here are unable or unwilling to explain how Molyneux "proved" the true nature of morality. They're clearly happy to keep repeating the assertion, though.

Here is the inconsistency: In step 1, if there is consent then something cannot be aggression. In step 2, if there is consent then something can still be aggression. This is because consent is given on an individual basis; it is certain that we both understand this, because it is explicitly stated in the language of step 2: "Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions" Under the rules of step 1, an act like rape would not be aggression because at least one party is consenting. Under the rules of step 2, all parties need to consent, therefore rape would be an aggression. So someone needs to (A) rewrite the steps, (B) abandon the steps and present a new account, or © somehow explain how step 1 and 2 are not inconsistent. Also, "a leviathan in philosophy"? Are you trying to make me laugh myself to death? Please, stop it with the hagiography, it doesn't do anything to prove your point. Even in this forum, which as far as I can tell is the only place where people agree with his moral writings, people admit the text is roundly rejected. Short of visiting this forum and his youtube channel, there's hardly a soul that gives a shit about the UPB and Molyneux, much less agrees with his moral arguments. Let's pretend, though, that you're too dense to understand that being "great" doesn't make you infallible. Choose a person like Plato, and then just rewrite your hagiography appropriately; in that comparison, we may as well pile Molyneux's books onto a bonfire and be done with it. Molyneux is an utter nobody in the grand scheme of things. As for providing arguments, I'm not the one asserting that the NAP is an objective rule of morality. I'm not the one who claims to have elucidated the true nature of morality. I'm the one asking for people to present proof.

Not necessarily

Now who's having a laugh "We can't present a true account of morality, because it's too lengthy to type out for you!"

Let's revisit how that thread ended. A poster wrote that the NAP asserts that aggression is wrong, and then gave 3 steps explaining how an act constitutes aggression: 1) An act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action (i.e sex isn't rape if there's consent) 2) Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions, an action cannot be considered consensual if one of the parties doesn't consent. 3) Lack of consent of the victim means the act isn't consensual and therefore it can be considered aggression. I pointed out that step 1 and 2 are inconsistent. Step 1 says that an act isn't aggression if there is consent, but Step 2 says an action can still constitute aggression if there is consent. I asked for the poster to fix the inconsistency, or otherwise make a new attempt. The poster decided to spit the dummy and left the thread. I was left with an incoherent account of aggression, and therefore an incoherent account of the NAP and morality. Like I said, you're writing your own little hagiography of the author. I can write something damning him, too. This is a pointless approach to the discussion. If you think that insulting me and complimenting your chosen hero is going to provide a true account of morality, then you're wrong.

I don't need to do (A) or (B). In actual fact, though, I did spend some time doing (A). I'm not disrespecting the theory; instead, I gave it my attention, and then learnt that it was unworthy of respect or approval. I do have a better theory, and I did give an account of some of its errors. That's besides the point, though, because I came here for one simple reason. To see if its adherents could offer and defend their account of morality. They couldn't, the end. That conclusion is wholly independent of my beliefs, and my account of the errors in the text. You could explain it, but you're unwilling. All this tells me is that not only is the text rejected everywhere outside of this forum, but even in this forum people are unwilling to provide an explanation and defense of it.

"I support the UPB, but I won't give an account of morality, I won't defend or define anything, and I expect the critics and disbelievers to tell me why I'm right!" I came here thinking that some people honestly believed that the UPB was a true account of morality, and that they would try to explain and defend the text. In that sense, I was mistaken. I have already concluded that the text is rubbish, but this was an opportunity for its alleged adherents to step up to the plate. I can't go elsewhere for such a discussion, because the text is roundly rejected.

You asked a question, but you clearly had some reason for introducing the concept of gravity and evolution. So did you think they were comparable, and therefore that it would logically follow that I hold contempt for them? Because that is incorrect; I hold contempt for the UPB because it is an incoherent account of morality, and ultimately boils down to a subjective moral power-play. Why did you italicise "disrespecting" and put it in bold? Do you think it's an awful thing to review the UPB text, discuss it with people here, and then reach a conclusion? My conclusion is that it's a flawed and incoherent text, and that it's supporters are unable or unwilling to explain and defend it. No, I did not write a book on secular ethics. Is that also proof that the UPB is a true account of morality? Yes, a 3 page thread of hand wringing and people refusing to define terms and address logical inconsistencies. As for your questions of what's more likely, that's a very funny account of reality. If you want to talk about the text, you could just as easily write "having been written by a relatively obscure thinker, and roundly rejected by every recognised philosopher and academic institution". I don't fault the guy who wrote the UPB for trying to write a book. In my brief review of his book, I said it was good that he's interested in morality and hosts a call-in show. That doesn't erase the fact that the text is deeply flawed, and that people here either cannot, or will not, present and defend an account of it.

No it's not. Oh man, see how easy that is? Both can play at that game. I don't even know what you think a "universally preferable behaviour" is. In fact, why are you even looking at me to give an account of morality. I would like to read an account of morality, but people here are incapable or unwilling to show it; instead, they just claim that if you talk to them, you admit that their account is correct.