Search the Community

Hey Guys I have a quote that I filtered out of one or a couple of Stefan's Podcasts. I'm not sure if he said it or talked about it, if it was once or a couple of times. First the quote, second my attempt to defend it. *sorry that should say Paraphrase: quote and filtered out. Be wary, Be very Wary of people who say that morality doesn't matter, because they do get to enjoy the spoils of other people's morality. If you believe in morality and I don't. I still get to enjoy your believe in morality. Meaning you not punching me. You not stealing from me. Whereas I can hit you, punch you, steal from you and so on. Enjoy is a value statement and if I say morality doesn't matter, then that is a contradiction. Because morality does matter to me insofar it matters to others. In order for me to hit, punch, steal from them. Please can someone point out where I made mistakes?? Thank you

So, I don't know if anyone has already done this or not, but I thought it would be very useful to organize the UPB framework into a concise series of criteria tests much like is done with the scientific method. This has helped me use UPB to either validate or invalidate a moral claim. Please look it over and let me know if I have forgotten anything: Criteria for a UPB proposition to be valid: 1. Cannot be proactively positive. 2. Must be universal across space, time, and conditional scenarios. 3. Must not simply be a description, but must be a valid negative obligation that one can put into practice. 4. Must pass the common sense test (the rape test et al). 5. Must negate the morality of a positive action that one is reasonably able to avoid doing. 6. The morally negated action must create a negative outcome for another party simply by the act of committing it. [Side note: We could objectively prove this as a necessary criterion by saying that the morally negated action must create karmic debt for the actor] 7. The morally negated action must not be reasonably avoidable by the victim of the action otherwise it is an aesthetically preferable behavior. 8. Positive net benefits of compliance to the moral rule must be verified empirically once put into practice.

I shudder when someone talks about absolute moral theory, my first thought is their afraid to do the math, we are not all equal. No I am not trying to troll, I am trying to point out that ethics is situational and you have to do the moral math if you want to get to the next level of ethics. A pawn can be worth more than a queen, in some instances, this is true in chess it’s also true in life. I once played a much better chess player and beat him simply because he overvalued his queen. I sacrificed my queen for his, and he was devastated. So I was recently asked to come up with a moral example, to illustrate this point, So I thought I would share it in a new post by itself. It’s a scenario where you get to play a social worker. You are a social worker, working in Arkansas, and and Marry, a mother of 3, confess to having sex with her 13 year old adopted step son John. Marry feels horrible about it, and want’s help. She is living with her brother in lawn Eric and her quadriplegic wife Brandy. Brandy was in the car accident that killed Mary's husband and left Brandy in a wheelchair for life, needing 24hr care . Eric is a long haul truck driver, and is hardly ever home. You are checking on Brandy, it was Brandy during a private conversation, that asked you to talk to Marry to find out what was wrong. Brandy said. “Marry is such a wonderful person and she works so hard, I hate to see her in such pain, she takes such good care of me, and the house, I don’t know what I would do without her help. God has truly blessed me with her, and her 3 kids, I love having them running around the house, laughing, and carrying on, they are such happy kids, please can you talk to her and see if you can help, I know she misses her husband horribly, I am sure it has somthing to do with that.” So what do you do, and why?