A response about UPB

[Chaoticoli]

.[1][2][1]{comment10151990797800715_27446743}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]]"I'm simply saying that maybe there isn't a universal preference. What is telling you that it's wrong for a child to have leukemia? I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm not making a single claim on moral authority here. I have neith.[1][2][1]{comment10151990797800715_27446743}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3]]er the time not the energy to waste on such matters as an ethics system, I'm more than content in doing what I feel to be right at the time, simply because that's all I've really got. It isn't much, but it's all I can say that doesn't wholly fall apart. I've wasted too much time on morality. 

So the point lies on you to inform me as to why the universe would prefer that this child were leukemia free."

I think he misunderstood what UPB really means, but would anyone like to write a rebuttal to this statement?  

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

Do you need help refuting this argument or are you just sharing? I ask because this is the most incoherent argument against UPB I've heard and unless you need help explaining it to him, it isn't worth the time.

[Mister Mister]

 Having leukemia is a medical condition it is not behavior.  UPB and other ethical theories describe human behavior (that's what the B stands for).

[Chaoticoli]

I would like some advice on how I should reply. As of this moment, I am not exactly sure of what the true definition of UPB is. If anyone can give me a nice definition i'd appreciate it. 

The guy later replies : "1) You have yet to show how a child having leukemia isn't universally preferable[/font]

.[1][2][1]{comment10151990797800715_27450302}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]]2) UPB seems to me to be a lot like presuppositionalism. And I hate presuppositionalism. 

.[1][2][1]{comment10151990797800715_27450302}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]]So you may continue on with your little talking points and standard statements, .[1][2][1]{comment10151990797800715_27450302}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3]]but until I see LEGITIMATE reasons as to why UPB must exist in all times and in all places for all people, I won't be satisfied with any other point you make. "

I have an idea of how to respond, but not sure about which direction to take this in. 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

"I have an idea of how to respond, but not sure about which direction to take this in."

 

It would be nice if you'd answer here as you're thinking, then we could help you polish the answer before you respond to him.

[Chaoticoli]

First, I feel like a definition of UP is necessary. He claims that I must prove that a child having Leukemia is not universally preferable. It's very common-sensical in my head, but more logically, I am not really able to come to any conclusions. His view is that there is no such thing as "universally preferable" anywhere. I know Stefan uses says that UPB is "necessary". I partly understood this implication, but I don't entirely understand it. Perhaps someone could make this connection more apparent to me?  I think that Leukemia in a 10 year old child is not universally preferable simply because Leukemia obviously kills. Under his line of reasoning, it seems that I could kill someone and claim that "there was no evidence that the universe needed him" and I would be scotch-free. I just feel lost on this topic. It's one of those humps I've never gotten over in discussions.  

[Dave Bockman]

[view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CueDiner6t0]

also

872 Debating and Universally Preferable Behavior

[TDB]

"I have neith[/size]er the time not the energy to waste on such matters as an ethics system, I'm more than content in doing what I feel to be right at the time  [/size]

In other words, "don't make me think, I just want to use my intuition."

[TDB]

He claims that I must prove that a child having Leukemia is not universally preferable.

A child having Leukemia is not a moral proposition. UPB tests moral propositions for logical inconsistency.