How is UPB not a rip off of Kant's Categorical Imperative?

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

Kant's categorical imperative was written about extensively in his work, "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals: With the Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns".  This categorical imperative states, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."  I'm really having a hard time distinguishing the differences between this moral philosophy and that of Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB).  In Kant's work, he discusses the exact example of how lying is morally impermissible regardless of circumstance.  He claims that, when you universalize the act of lying when it's convenient, you would be living in a world where everyone MUST lie when it's convenient.  It is also true that a lie can only be told if the listener of that lie is predisposed to believe the liar is telling the truth.  For example, actors and actresses are not lying when they are performing as fictional characters on stage because the audience is predisposed to believe they are being lied to.  Going back to the universalization of lying, people would know when it's convenient to lie and when it isn't, and so the lie would be exposed every time a person tried to lie, and thus, truly lying is logically impossible.The execution of UPB follows this exact format.  You universalize some maxim and then show that it leads to a contradiction.  Doesn't this make UPB just a rip off of Kantian ethics?  Isn't that academically dishonest to say it's Stefan Molyneux's theory of ethics if he just attached a new name to somebody else's intellectual property?  Likewise, isn't UPB exposed to the same criticisms that Kantian ethics are exposed to, e.g. utilitarianism? 

[thornyd]

Hello! Great questions. 

As far as I understand it, Universally Preferable Behavior is the method used to determine whether or not something can be a moral rule. If you universalize the maxim and find a contradiction, then it cannot be a moral rule because it cannot be logically universalized.

When Kant said lying is morally impermissable because of the contradictions in trying to universalize lying, I believe he had made a mistake. He had only disproved the maxim that people should lie when convenient, so he had shown it cannot be a moral rule. He then took a leap by saying all lying is immoral, but he had only proved that lying cannot be a moral rule. "Lying cannot be a moral rule" is not the same as "People must never lie". 

As far as I'm aware, the Categorical Imperative determines what people must do (Imperative), whereas UPB determines whether or not a theory can be a moral theory. UPB does not proscribe morals, it simply validates or invalidates moral theories.

With regards to it being dishonest to use other people's intellectual property to further a philosophy; isn't this what all philosophers have done since the beginning of philosophy? They take the good parts of past philosophies, and leave the bad parts behind.

It would be excellent if you could post some of the criticisms of Kantian ethics so that we can put them through the ringer of UPB and see how it turns out.

 

PS: Here is a past thread on this topic that you may be interested to read.

Also, here is a link to the full text of UPB, as well as this very helpful appendix at the end:

[*] 

• Reality is objective and consistent.
• “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
• Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”
• Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.”
• Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.”
• “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.
• Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
• Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
• Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
• The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
• As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
• Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

Of course people build off of other people's philosophical works and that's totally legitimate.  I assumed UPB was a prescriptive moral theory.  What you're telling me is that UPB can invalidate certain moral rules, such as lying, stealing, rape, and murder.  That's fine if anybody was espousing that these things could be moral rules.  I just don't see the usefulness of UPB if all it does is invalidate things that nobody actually believed was valid in the first place.

[Lowe D]

A lot of people do think murder is moral, as long as the one doing it has the right badge.

[LovePrevails]

Great question, great answer.

 

 

Hello! Great questions. 

As far as I understand it, Universally Preferable Behavior is the method used to determine whether or not something can be a moral rule. If you universalize the maxim and find a contradiction, then it cannot be a moral rule because it cannot be logically universalized.

When Kant said lying is morally impermissable because of the contradictions in trying to universalize lying, I believe he had made a mistake. He had only disproved the maxim that people should lie when convenient, so he had shown it cannot be a moral rule. He then took a leap by saying all lying is immoral, but he had only proved that lying cannot be a moral rule. "Lying cannot be a moral rule" is not the same as "People must never lie". 

As far as I'm aware, the Categorical Imperative determines what people must do (Imperative), whereas UPB determines whether or not a theory can be a moral theory. UPB does not proscribe morals, it simply validates or invalidates moral theories.

With regards to it being dishonest to use other people's intellectual property to further a philosophy; isn't this what all philosophers have done since the beginning of philosophy? They take the good parts of past philosophies, and leave the bad parts behind.

It would be excellent if you could post some of the criticisms of Kantian ethics so that we can put them through the ringer of UPB and see how it turns out.

 

 

PS: Here is a past thread on this topic that you may be interested to read.

Also, here is a link to the full text of UPB, as well as this very helpful appendix at the end:

[*] 

• Reality is objective and consistent.
• “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
• Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”
• Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.”
• Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.”
• “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.
• Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
• Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
• Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
• The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
• As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
• Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

 

 

[Magnus]

 

What you're telling me is that UPB can invalidate certain moral rules, such as lying, stealing, rape, and murder.  That's fine if anybody was espousing that these things could be moral rules.  I just don't see the usefulness of UPB if all it does is invalidate things that nobody actually believed was valid in the first place.

 

Here's a common ethical proposition -- "It is not unethical for the agents of the State to levy taxes on the populace."

How does it hold up to the rigorous demands of universality?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You might want to watch one of Stef's latest videos "Ethics of capitalism". He mentions Kant's categorical imperative and the difference between that and upb becomes clear.

[Hannibal]

 

Of course people build off of other people's philosophical works and that's totally legitimate.  I assumed UPB was a prescriptive moral theory.  What you're telling me is that UPB can invalidate certain moral rules, such as lying, stealing, rape, and murder.  That's fine if anybody was espousing that these things could be moral rules.  I just don't see the usefulness of UPB if all it does is invalidate things that nobody actually believed was valid in the first place.

 

 

I think more than being a tool to work out what can and can't be moral, it's real purpose is to show that morality is objective, or at least why it should be if it is to have any meaning and if it is to be worth having.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If you don't think people use moral theories to justify lying, stealing, rape and murder as valid then you've never considered religion, taxation, imprisonment and war.

[DaisyAnarchist]

Nice thread. I'm satisfied by thornyd's response to the topic question, but one thing I can add is that utilitarianism is not a legitimate criticism of Kant's categorical imperative or Molyneux's UPB theory. Utilitarianism is not a legitimate theory of right and wrong, for that matter. 

What happens to individual rights when we become more concerned with the happiness (whatever that means) of a larger group of people? 

I think the answer is obvious, and this is why utilitarianism exposes itself to greater criticism.