EclecticIdealist

These statements are neither objectively true or false, except in relation to a particular individual's moral judgement, or the collective moral judgement of society, both of which are subjective. This is certainly a good rule of thumb for determining what morals (and laws based upon those morals) may be deemed proper and acceptable. The trouble lies in conflicts of interest... for example. Would you sign on to a rule that says any member of society unable to provide for themselves has to be supported by the society, or Is it moral for society to allow the weak to perish from starvation, thirst, lack of shelter, and so on? What obligations, if any, exist towards those members of society who are unable to care for themselves? How are those obligations to be met if certain members of society refuse to give of their substance to support the weak and incapable? How does one reconcile these positive obligations (if they even exist) with the moral prohibitions against theft (for example)? I agree with Hume. One cannot get to ought from an is through rational means alone, and one cannot derive a moral prescription or moral prohibition for society without first assuming specific preferences. In the case of UPB as set forth by Stefan, the unspoken, underlying preference is for Universal Liberty. For a society based on Islam, the underlying value would be submission to the will of Allah as defined by his prophet in the Koran. For the Christian, it would be a society based on the Holy Bible. None of these systems are the true morality any more than Chocolate is the true superior flavor. Nevertheless, various moral propositions can be tested to determine whether they rationally support the ideals they are intended to support or not.

I see what you're saying. You're suggesting that lying is not the use of force because it is not incumbent upon you to believe the lie. In other words: The initiation of the use of force is binding upon the victim without their consent. Because a person does not have to believe the lie they are told, lies are not binding upon the person being lied to. Therefore, lying is not the initiation of the use of force. If your proposition were correct as it stands, that would place telling a lie in the realm of Aesthetically Negative, not Morally Wrong. Which means you are suggesting that lying is akin to being late, or farting in public. However, your proposition as it stands is incorrect. I will demonstrate what you are doing wrong. The initiation of the use of force is binding upon the victim without their consent. Because a stronger person may successfully resist a weaker person attempting to push them off of a cliff, the attempt made by a weaker person to push a stronger person off of a cliff is not binding upon the person being pushed. Therefore, the attempt made by a weaker person to push a stronger person off of a cliff is not the initiation of force. And, incidentally, not only is it not an initiation of the use of force, but merely an aesthetic negative,. The attempt by weaker people to murder stronger people by attempting to push them off of cliffs is not morally evil, but merely an aesthetic negative. When a person lies, they are attempting to insert a falsehood or falsehoods into the mental conception of another person. When this is done without the person's knowledge or consent (i.e., it is not a form of entertainment such as a magic show, fictional story, etc.), it is an act of force against the person's mental conception of reality. Whether or not the insertion is successful does not change the fact that the insertion was attempted. We don't say that attempted assault is merely aesthetically negative but successful assault is immoral because one was avoided and the other was not. We don't say that attempted rape is merely aesthetically negative, but only successful rape is evil. The attempted assault, just like the attempted rape are still acts of aggression or the use of force. Similarly, the attempt to initiate a non-defensive act of fraud or deceit upon another person is not merely an aesthetically negative act because one is unsuccessful, and morally wrong only if one is successful. The act of lying is the use of force, whether or not the lie is believed, just as the act of assault or rape are the use of force whether or not the act is successful or avoided/thwarted. This is not a difficult concept to understand. The only reason why one might have difficulty accepting the truth once it is fully understood is if they are attempting to justify committing fraud or deceit by suggesting that the other person is more morally responsible for believing a lie than the person is for telling the lie. That's like saying a woman is more responsible for allowing herself to be raped than the rapist is for raping her. Sorry, that duck just won't fly.

Think "travel size" as you might use for hand soap or shampoo that you take with you in your luggage, or perhaps the smallest condiment squeeze bottle for mustard, ketchup, honey or the like, preferably one with a cap that will pop off if you squeeze hard enough, so it can be operated one handed. make sure to practice with it a few times so you know the amount of pressure it will take, how many loads you can count on, the range, and so on.

I believe you are inferring something which I am not claiming. Perhaps a restatement would lend clarity to my assertion. Lying is akin to physical violence. It has no intrinsic moral quality. The moral judgment placed upon lying is the same placed upon physical violence. When the physical violence is an unjustified initiation of the use of force (e.g. assault, rape, attempted murder), it is judged to be ethically and morally wrong or evil. However, when the physical violence is a defense act, used to defend against the aforementioned initiation of the use of force, it is deemed, at least morally neutral, and in the case of an individual engaging in a proxy self-defense of another, a moral good. Lying is not a physical assault on the material world, it is an assault or use of force upon the rational or mental world in another person's mind, an assault or use of force against their conception of reality in an attempt to get them to make decisions based upon illusions rather than fact, falsehood rather than truth. Lying is subject to NAP in exactly the same way that physical violence, psychological violence, and emotional violence are subject to NAP. As to the notion that I would have to prove that I am more responsible for your decisions than you are, are you suggesting that if as your trusted Doctor, I tell you that I am giving you medicine to treat your cancer, but in fact I am only giving you saline; you are more responsible than I for your choices not to seek actual treatment from another physician while you are under my care?

There are a number of innocuous items you might regularly take on your walks. Pepper spray may be illegal where you are, but a squirt bottle of pepper sauce likely isn't. A knife or sword may be illegal, but a walking stick or cane with metal spikes for added traction won't get a second look. One must learn to think as the Ninja's of Japan did... most of the time, they looked like the farmers they were, but they utilized farming implements as their weapons, and they learned how to escape and evade, how to hide, run, jump, and climb (think parkour). Avoiding a fight is best, but if one must fight, do not be kind or gentle; be vicious and decisive. Seek to permanently maim or if necessary, kill as quickly and efficiently as possible. This means going after the weakest, most vulnerable targets of opportunity first, especially those which are likely to end a fight, such as the eyes, ears, nose, fingers, knees, elbows, throat, and genitals.

Next you'll be suggesting that people shouldn't be forced to do anything the government officials tell them they must. What more proof do you need that America is a slave state and the people are its slaves? We simply have more privileges than slaves in other slave states.

Perhaps I should rephrase.... conceive of a society without personal property rights. It's anarchy without NAP - the law of the jungle, i.e. might makes mine.

To be loved by those one loves, to be respectable and respected, to be successful in one's endeavors, to continue to find the beauty and wonder in life as one did as a child, to share companionship with a loving and deserving partner, to enjoy the joys of progeny if such is desired, to be free to pursue any dream or goal, and to endlessly find more to see, to do, and to become.

Lying is the use of force against another's perceptions of reality. Like violence, it is neither ethical or moral, nor unethical or immoral. It is only in how it is used that it becomes one or the other. If it is used to harm another, especially to one's advantage, or to their disadvantage, it is immoral. If it is used to entertain or educate with little or no adverse consequence (such as done by a magician, or an actor, or actress, etc.), it can be considered at least amoral, if not in fact moral. If it is done to prevent harm from coming to others (e.g. lying to the Nazis, or someone else intending unjustifiable harm) it is moral (despite what others might tell you about lifeboat situations and lying).

Educator/Communicator Entertainer

yes. Empathy is seeing yourself in another person's situation, you may need to use your imagination to see things from their perspective. Once you're able to do that, you'll know if you're being fair. Always. Some battles are not worth fighting, much less winning if it means unnecessarily alienating someone you otherwise love for greater virtues than the aesthetics and personal preferences you may be taking issue with. On the other hand, if the problem is actual vices, such as abuse, chronic deceit, betrayal, etc. these are battles to pick and reasons to reevaluate any relationship. It depends on the nature, severity, and constancy of the mistakes. Are these things which they're attempting to correct? Perhaps they simply need more time or a better strategy, or perhaps even more encouragement to change something that is the result of an ingrained, habitual behavior. One is almost always mistaken in paying heavy attention to detail, especially if it is heavy attention to detail about another's perceived faults or shortcomings that are merely personal preferences on your part or essentially inconsequential aesthetics (as opposed to those aesthetics that are of greater importance to you). What is your attitude about this other person's failings? Do you view these as character deficiencies or do you view them as bad habits or behaviors they may need time and assistance in correcting, or perhaps merely inconsequential personality traits that can reasonably be overlooked which you're choosing not to. Remember that one aesthetic common to harmonious relationships is to overlook the inconsequential and only work on correcting that which is truly consequential. Yes. Look-up "Reflective Listening" and practice a few exercises on trivial matters of opinion. Once you both fully understand the methodology involved,use it any time you have a discussion or argument that is likely to become heated. One last thing to remember. The best relationships involve cooperation, not compromise. If you find you must compromise on your ideals, values, or long-term goals, you are NOT with the right partner. The right partner will cooperate with you to mutual benefit (Win-Win), the wrong partner will either compromise on their side and become resentful, or require you to compromise, leading you to become resentful. Never compromise on anything that is truly important, but don't get hung up on inconsequential stuff either. It's all about learning to tell the difference and having the courage to maintain your integrity while requiring they do the same on what is important.

I find it really interesting that there are some people who are unable to conceive of a world without property rights. Rights are merely claims of exclusive control that are expected to be recognized and respected by other members of society according to common, mutual agreement to adhere to the NAP. If no claim of exclusive control is made or recognized, then control is maintained by superior ability, or not at all.

Whether you agree with the following definitions outside of the context of this (and any subsequent posts I make) is entirely up to you, but for the sake of understanding, please assume the following definitions for these terms. Ethics involve an individual's judgments of right and wrong on their own behavior. Morals are the collective judgements made by society on the behavior of its members or the society as a whole. Most will consider the initiation of the use of force to be sufficient justification to disregard the morals imposed upon them by society. It is a reasonable position to take as every person living in the society is under an implicit, informal social agreement to adhere to these morals if one wishes others to do likewise. Those who violate this implicit social contract of adherence to social mores opens themselves up to the other no longer being bound by such rules themselves. For example, society says adhere to the NAP in order to minimize violence. A person declines to adhere to NAP by aggressing with violence. The person may now be retaliated against with violence to the extent reasonably necessary to defend oneself (or others) against their violence (and no further). In other words, physical violence may be met with defensive physical violence. A bloody nose does not, however, justify lethal retaliation. Lying is similar to violence in that it is a violation of the common societal morals and is a commonly held ethic. It is not the same as physical violence in that the only potential damage that is done is to the perception of the individual who is lied to; but such damage may be great or small depending upon the consequences of an illusory belief one had the reasonable expectation of being genuine. For example, the lies of doctors about medical conditions or genuine concern for their patients during the Tuskeegee syphilis experiment did tremendous harm and even resulted in the likely untimely deaths and certain disfigurement, pain, etc. to those who contracted or were deliberately infected with syphilis and not properly treated according to medical knowledge and standards of practice at the time. Had the patients been operating under correct knowledge from honest doctors and medical staff, their outcomes would have certainly been different for all or nearly all of them. Lying in an assault on the perceptions of others which limits their ability to make informed decisions uncolored by deliberate obfuscation or misrepresentation of reality. It is akin to emotional, psychological, and physical abuse in its potential long-term consequences, depending upon the nature and severity of the lie (much like a cut may be of different severity and long-term consequences depending upon its length, depth, place upon the body, and so on, and how quickly the wound is treated. Just a wound can be treated and will heal, and superficial ones without scars, lies can be treated and heal with honesty; and those which are superficial will often heal without scars, but the deepest cutting lies, like the deepest cutting wounds, can leave lasting scars which last a lifetime, and injuries which may be debilitating for a lifetime. Lying is an initiation of the use of force when the other person has not already initiated force through violence, threat of violence, or deceit. It is a defensive use of force once such violence or threat of violence has been initiated.

According to UPB, in two of his five proofs in his book, the term universal indicates ubiquity of preference. And while it is not necessary for absolutely everyone to hold such a belief, nearly everyone should for behavior to be properly termed "universal" in the sense of being ubiquitous. So while I don't disagree with what you're stating about the proposition necessarily needing to be rationally universally applicable, I am suggesting that such is necessary, but insufficient for it to be UPB and a moral. There are other propositions which can be rationally universally applicable, but because they are not ubiquitously prevalent in some societies, they are merely personal preference; whereas in others they are at least aesthetically taboo, and in some cases deemed to be inherently harmful to society (unavoidable) and therefore immoral. Some of these propositions include the prohibitions against the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, fornication, homosexuality, and gambling to name some of the most common depending upon what society one lives in. It would fail complete universal prevalence, yes. But that does not seem to be a problem for UPB according to Stefan. If something is nearly universally regarded as preferable, that is sufficient to be regarded as UPB. It need not be absolutely universally prevalent. Yes, that is exactly my point. Empirically speaking, that is precisely what the evidence indicates as well. Depending upon the culture, something may be immoral or aesthetically taboo, and in another culture a matter of personal preference or in some cases, an aesthetic good, or even a moral good (such as the ritual killing of animals).

By this, I am inferring that you mean if it is possible for a particular action to be preferable by multiple individuals simultaneously as a proof of the rational consistency of the proposition of a universally held prohibition (or prescription). Referring to the mental exercise of two men in a room. Two men in a room cannot both hold that murder is good without likewise holding that to be murdered is also good; but this is in fact a possibility. If both propositions are true, then there is rational consistency. To kill another without justification is perfectly acceptable and good from the standpoint of a murderer, as well as a "good way to die" for a victim. Resisting such a virtuous act could also be good; however not resisting or embracing the virtuous act of murder could also be considered unvirtuous if surrender, eschewing violence, self-sacrifice and suicide are considered immoral acts. My point is, that there can be rational consistency without empirical consistency, and even if a moral proposition passes the test of universal consistency, it may nevertheless fail the test of empirical consistency (does it happen in material reality?) That is exactly what I'm getting at. All morals are subjective--the collective, subjective ethics of a given society. The only thing we can really discern is whether they are consistent and rational, or inconsistent and non-rational or possibly even irrational.

A government is the traditional way, but it is not the only way. A registry of property, commonly held by two or more private parties can be used to establish the legitimacy of a claim. Justification of a claim can be established based on universally agreed upon principles such as principles of homesteading, trade, and so forth. A government as such is not necessary, although it may be the most efficient. The problem with such efficiency, is that it almost invariably leads to tyranny.

Previously I wrote: "The Universal Prevalence of a belief does not make it true. Consensus does not change that which is subjective (beliefs, perceptions, and preferences) into that which is objective (facts, relationships, and truths). ..." I fully understand the premise of universal applicability as one of the conditions of UPB. Universal applicability is what puts the lie to the illusory, rationally inconsistent reversal of morals in the "null zone" so common in governments violating the NAP, for example. However, for something to be UPB, it must not only be universally applicable, that is to say, applicable to all members of society; but for something to be deemed, UPB, it must also be a universally held (or rather a nearly universally held) preference of behavior. If the behavior is not preferred by all, or nearly all people, it cannot properly be deemed a universally preferred behavior or UPB, and presumably, it cannot be deemed either a moral prescription or moral prohibition. Instead, it falls within the realm of a commonly held, but not universal personal preference. There are a number of things which fall into the category of common, but not universally common preferable behavior. Among such behaviors are the prohibitions against drinking, smoking, obtaining body piercings and tattoos, gambling, and so on. I wrote: "Another short-coming in UPB is the lack of explanation as to why some cultures view certain UPB as enforceable whereas others do not and how we can know whether they should be enforceably prohibited..." Again, I understand what you're saying here, You're speaking to the internal consistency and nature of the moral proposition pertaining to a particular behavior. However, I am attempting to point out that there are certain behaviors which some cultures deem unavoidable and therefore enforceable, and which other cultures deem either avoidable or not Universally prohibited. I am attempting to obtain clarification how UPB explains the lack of universal agreement as to which behaviors are avoidable and which are not (and therefore enforceable) or whether such is purely an example of a corrupt moral system. Actually, that is not what Hume was saying at all. Hume was saying that one cannot get an "ought" solely from what "is", using reason or rationality alone, that one must also appeal to non-rational sentiment (as I believe Stefan is doing with UPB). I would say I completely concur with your assessment as stated above.

People do not own land by virtue of existence, nor does one own air, water, or other resources by virtue of our dependance upon them for survival. Were existence and necessity sufficient to justify ownership, a person could justify ownership of a home merely by occupying it, or the food cultivated, harvested, and gathered by another on the basis of need. Ownership requires more than the assertion of a claim and a basis for such a claim. An exclusive claim must be justifiable to all potential claimants according to universally applicable standards of ownership recognized by the majority of members of a society, or chaos and violence will ensue as people attempt to establish and maintain their claim by force. Homesteading can be rationally asserted; however, because it is not the only possible system, rational claims against it can be made according to competing ideas about the acquisition of real property. The challenge for a society is in determining what system is to be used and then consistently executing that system unless or until it is determined that a different system should be utilized. Marxism operates under the premise that the very idea of personal property is wrong because it is selfish, and that no person is any more or less entitled to anything than any other person. Thus, no person has a justifiable claim upon anything, merely a need or desire which may only be satisfied under the consent of the community as a whole, or more often, as determined by the political leaders elected or appointed to manage the affairs of the state. A person may possess and use things by the permission of the community (state), but they may never own them or consider them their personal property. Under Marxism, property only rightfully belongs to the community as a collective whole, and no individual member of the community is entitled to anything; everything is dispensed at the pleasure of the community as a whole (or more precisely, the managers of the community). The real problem facing the world today is the ongoing cold (and sometimes hot) war of ideologies held by different communities and societies around the world which informs their moral systems, govern the people under their jurisdiction and influence, and influence the behavior and actions of such individuals. This war of competing ideologies and moral systems exists not simply between societies on the same hierarchical level such as between Nation States or Religions, but also between the different communities which one is a member of, i.e. a conflict between the ideologies of one's religion or religious organization and one's political community on the local, state or federal level; or a conflict between one's personal ethics and those of one's immediate or extended family, etc. All of man's progress comes from a reduction of conflict, which necessitates the harmonizing, of the ethical system one personally adheres to, with the moral systems imposed from without by one's family, peers, community, religion, state, nation, and so on, or the disruption and overthrow of these various systems in favor of systems which can be harmonized with one's personal ethical system.

Yes, while I certainly disagree with his property claims, he is precisely right that the NAP doesn't resolve the issue of taxation if there is not a common agreement as to the entitlement claim of the money. Appealing to NAP (as the author suggests many libertarians do) presupposes not only a Universal acceptance of NAP (which the author is not disputing), but also a common agreement as to the who is entitled to the property (money taken as a tax) which the author is disputing when suggesting that taxation is not theft.

Utilizing force to retain what belongs to you is not aggression or the initiation of the use of force. Similarly, demanding the immediate return of your property and engaging in force if the property is being unjustly retained by another is not the initiation of the use of force, it is again a defensive or retaliatory use of force against a prior use of force (on the part of the person unjustly retaining one's property). Yes. This is why for a society to be orderly and peaceful, rather than chaotic and full of violence, there must be agreement upon the ideals, values, and principles upon which society operates, which is what morals and rights are all about. Morals define the rules for an orderly society. If a person mixes their labor with land that no one else has previously laid claim to, and they labor upon it for their own behalf then the land is acknowledged to belong to them. That is the common law concept of homesteading which most of our Founding Fathers advocated and practiced. If on the other hand, a person lays claim to land not designated by the state as open to homesteading, or land that is the just claim of another person, no amount of labor will make it their land.

Natural limitations vs Artificial limitations Natural limitations are things which every person must contend with as they arise. Differences in physiology cause different limitations, as do different circumstances. Artificial limitations, on the other hand, are imposed by volitional actors. In some cases, the artificial limitations are justifiable, as in the case of self-defense. In other cases, the artificial limitations are not justifiable, as in the case of robbery or rape. We can justly take exception to artificial limitations which restrain our liberty or choice on the basis that those imposing such limitations are not acting morally, that is to say, they are not acting in accordance with the commonly agreed upon rules governing human behavior in society in such a manner as negatively impacts oneself or others. In short, imposing artificial limitations upon others is immoral. Now consider the difference between artificial limitations that are imposed by violence or the threat of violence (rape and robbery for example) and those which are mutually agreed upon by verbal or written contract as in the case of employment. In exchange for wages or salary and possibly other benefits, the employer requires the employee to arrive at work each day they are scheduled and work exclusively for and on behalf of the employer as directed by the employer or manager until a particular time (excluding breaks for rest, diversion, the consumption of food, etc.) The employee agrees with the contractual arrangement with the employer and thus agrees to be bound by the artificial constraints set by the employer, and the employer agrees to part with the money. When it comes to taxation, taxes are clearly not a natural limitation on what a man may do with his property, they are an artificial limitation. Not only are they an artificial limitation, they are an artificial limitation that are imposed by the threat of violence. It does not matter that services may be rendered which are intended to compensate the person being taxed for their loss of liberty (as to what they may do with their property) any more than it would matter if a robber who stole your wallet also gave you a new pair of shoes. The actions were an involuntary artificial limitation that was imposed and as such are considered to be immoral and wrong. The difference between Natural limitations and Involuntary Artificial limitations is that no moral judgment can properly be made about Naturally imposed limitations, but moral judgements can be made about the imposed Artificial limitations which are the result of coercion. Nature does not coerce, it merely presents conditions which may or may not be changed through one's own volition or natural processes; Moral agents, on the other hand can coerce, they can issue credible threats of violence which coerce behavior through the creation of artificial limitations. It is improper to use the term coerce when referring to anything or anyone but moral agents.

To answer the question of whether something is "good" or "bad", we must first define the scope of the moral judgement. If the scope is solely the individual doing the breaking, then whether or not it is deemed "good" or "bad" is dependent entirely upon the ideals of the individual, what is it they desire? Does their action further that desire or not? If it furthers that desire or promotes that ideal, it is deemed good, if it frustrates it, it is deemed bad, and if it neither furthers, nor impedes the accomplishment or maintenance of that ideal, it is judged neither good nor bad. This is the concept of morality that is commonly held by most Objectivists and others consumed with selfishness (not merely self-interest as they claim, as their self-interest is often at the expense of others). If the scope is that of the two (or more) parties, involved, then it really depends upon each individual's perspective If the scope is society as a whole, then whether it is deemed good or bad is essentially the average opinion of all members of society. Generally, most of society would regard the breaking of a person's leg as bad because they would view the negative to the person whose leg is broken to outweigh the positive to the person who broke the person's leg, and any positive that might predictably be gained by society as a whole. Some bone-setters and pain-management specialists might consider it to be beneficial to their own interests as it will bring them business which is beneficial to society; but the net-negative to society would generally override this view; especially to those who may need to make adjustments to support the injured person, as well as those empathizing with the person whose leg is broken, not wishing to endure such pain and inconvenience themselves. Morality from an individual standpoint is about what is best for the survival and furtherance of the ideals of the individual. From the standpoint of society, it is about what is best for the survival of the members of society and the furtherance of the collective ideals of society. The vast majority of moral rules have their origin in our survival instincts programmed into us by genetics and other natural factors, as well as those lessons we learn early on from those that nurture us from the time we are born until the time we become autonomous members of society. One of the most powerful socializing instincts is that of empathy--the ability to imagine ourselves in the situation of another and experience the suffering or joy of another. We then respond in a manner as to minimize the suffering and maximize the joy of another as if they are ourselves. There also exists within most of us a desire to cooperate with others for mutual benefit or gain. These and other natural instincts are at the root of our instinctual or empirical individual and collective moral judgments.

I have a number of issues with UPB, some of which have been mentioned by others before. Having read a number of the threads, I have been only partially satisfied with the responses, and so I wish to elicit a response from others as to whether I misunderstand what Stefan has intended, or whether these are in fact legitimate criticisms which need to be addressed with respect to UPB. Stefan acknowledges the Humean distinction between "is" and "ought", and yet despite this acknowledgement, UPB on the face of it seems to be an attempt to derive an objective "ought" from a subjective "is", or put another way, to transform that which is inherently subjective, aesthetics and ethics, into that which is objective, facts, and truths. I believe Stefan makes a gravely fatal misstep in his attempt to define "a methodology for validating moral theories that is objective, consistent, clear, rational, empirical, and true". The Universal Prevalence of a belief does not make it true. Consensus does not change that which is subjective (beliefs, perceptions, and preferences) into that which is objective (facts, relationships, and truths). It was once a nearly universal belief that the sun, moon, and stars moved around a fixed and immovable earth, and yet the universal prevalence of such a belief did not make it true. This is not to suggest that I believe there is little to no value in UPB. To the contrary, I believe the scientific approach to evaluating moral propositions is very useful and can in fact be used to illuminate either the general irrationality in various moral systems, or the revelation of underlying, potentially suspect ideals or values which inform a moral system. Another short-coming in UPB is the lack of explanation as to why some cultures view certain UPB as enforceable whereas others do not and how we can know whether they should be enforceably prohibited, such as the behaviors of adultery, homosexuality, fornication, incest, and various other sexual prohibitions. From the standpoint of UPB, the aforementioned behaviors fall within the realm of aesthetically evil, bad or wrong; however, from the standpoint of Islam ancient Judaism, and other cultures, these are all enforceable moral evils, often punishable by death. UPB does not address why its standard of avoidability is necessarily the correct standard for distinguishing between enforceable and unenforceable universal preferences, rather than, for example, the adherence to the will of the majority (e.g., the majority consider rape evil and wrong, but don't think the prohibition should be enforced rendering rape aesthetically evil in the same way that insulting and verbally demeaning a person is aesthetically evil). I am interested in any comments as to where I might have misunderstood UPB or where my critique may be based on factual inaccuracies.

NAP - The initiation of the of the use of force is wrong (except in self-defense). Some have opined that unless the use of force has been initiated, self-defense cannot occur. I wish to propose an example for consideration where one could conceivably initiate the use of force as an act of self-defense. Iran wishes to enrich uranium in order to make weapon's grade plutonium and construct one or more nuclear weapons. Which of the following propositions is true? Iran's attempt to enrich uranium is an act of aggression, i.e., the initiation of the use of force, against Israel or its other perceived enemies; therefore, Israel is acting in self-defense when they destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities. Iran's attempt to enrich uranium is not an act of aggression; nevertheless, Israel or the US is acting in self defense by initiating the use of force to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities. The action of the US or Israel to preemptively destroy the uranium enrichment facilities of Iran is an unjustified act of aggression, i.e. an initiation of the use of force, against Iran, not an act of self-defense.

The natural laws of the universe are absolute. By this, I mean that reality is objective and consistent. Our knowledge and understanding of the Natural Laws of the universe is necessarily subjective and will change as our knowledge and understanding increases and becomes more precise. Our knowledge and understanding approaches an objective knowledge and understanding of the Universe the more we learn about what we as yet do not know. Practically speaking, we have an objective knowledge of "Newtonian Physics". Nevertheless, this practically objective knowledge is subject to change as newly discovered phenomena augments or alters our current understanding.