Search the Community

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'm concerned that some 'arguments from science' are often unscientific and dangerous and misguide people's behaviour. Such claims are often made to either prove a conclusion or gain some social, or financial interest. I hope to be true to reality ie an objectivist, but suspect people's argument from science is often false, specifically: 1. The "anecdotes are not evidence" argument. Say someone conducts a cruel/unethical experiment and brings an unknown liquid (acid) into a room of participants to test. The first person puts his finger into the liquid experiences pain and burning. Would the other (rational) participants do the same because the evidence is only anecdotal; a small sample, and inconclusive? 2. The "no evidence exists for" argument. For example, some people claim that fracking is dangerous, while others claim it is safe. Proponents argue that there is "no evidence for" fracking being dangerous, but:- Scientific studies are often carried out by vested interests (and are consequently biased), while opponents and sceptics often lack the funding to test the evidence or their theories. Even mainstream science is funded by the government whose interest is political not scientific truth, eg the anti-global warming scientists are dismissed from their posts, and notably the UK science advisor was dismissed for his anti-global warming message. Anecdotal evidence is often dismissed as unscientific yet the potential for harm from new technology or methods is often ignored or summarily dismissed risking costly and life-threatening consequences. Known benefits are stressed and unknown costs ignored. Real world testing over extended periods of time is the ultimate test, yet scientific knowledge progresses incrementally and partial knowledge can be worse than no knowledge if it leads us to take potentially costly or lethal risks. I'm not anti-scientific only sceptical of scientific claims especially when used for short term self interested goals, and not in the exploration and determining of truth from falsehood. Thanks for your thoughts, arguments and corrections!