Summerstone Posted January 8, 2013 Posted January 8, 2013 I was kicking this thought around in my head while I was washing dishes and I feel a little bit fogged when I try to reason it out. It's a question: If UPB posits that theories about human behavior must be universal, then how does one reconcile UPB with the idea that there are human predators (sociopaths) who are a different class of human? Maybe my disconnect is in the last four words of the question. I'm confused. How large of a distinction, in terms of morality, can one make between "predator" humans and "healthy" humans if at all? Perhaps I'm taking Stef too literally when he says that there's this distinct type of human that is not like all the other humans? That must be it. Would anyone care to enlighten my thinking here?
Brandon Buck _BB_ Posted January 8, 2013 Posted January 8, 2013 UPB doesn't posit anything, it is only a methodology for testing the validity of moral theories. For a moral theory to be valid, it must be both universal (applicable to all people at all times) and preferrable (not preferred). A lot of confusion sets in when people conflate the words preferable and preferred. And, when one interchanges those words within the phrase universally pxxx behavior, the meaning is remarkably different. That said, I don't think you're taking Stef too literally about anything. I think you're attempting to use UPB as a means of explaining how people act. Does that help?
Recommended Posts