Search the Community

Hello everyone, you might remember me from last year: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46766-mathematical-aid-for-upb-based-ethics/ I've finally managed to define UPB in exact terms and verify the most important conclusions of it rigorously. Here's A formal proof of universal and objective ethics. Disclaimer: This proof has not been reviewed or confirmed by anyone other than me. It most likely contains minor errors, but since the result is mathematically simple and intuitive, I would be surprised if a major flaw in the math was found. However, I suggest to take it with a grain of salt at this point. While this paper may not be important or persuasive for the ordinary person, I believe it's the most heavyweight intellectual firepower that can exist in support of universal and objective ethics. I'll be happy to hear comments, corrections and objections. Related note: When one understands the 5-page proof, he must conclude that the verbal proof presented in the UPB book contains assertions and paths of reasoning that are not required by, or included in the formal proof. To take an example, claims such as "No moral theory can be valid if it argues that a certain action is right in Syria, but wrong in San Francisco." or "The moral proposition “eating fish is evil” thus fails the test of universality because it is too specific --" are not made in the formal proof. This kind of generality of moral rules is not required to prove the validity of universal and objective ethics. In fact, I have no clue how to define the generality of a proposition in non-arbitrary terms. I do not understand the book well enough to show that this excessivity would be incorrect, or even undesirable, but the fact that it took me over a year of mental wrestling and dozens of retries in the conceptual weeds of UPB to understand what I believe is the essence of it, may suggest otherwise. With the lack of arguments, this is not a critique, but a heads-up, that the current verbal argument may not be presented in a clear and condensed form (which the formal proof is also not, for most people.)