UPB FAQ attempt

[TDB]

<p>I've taken a shot at a UPB FAQ http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2013/01/upb-faq.html. Please comment if you have a question that should be included or can expand or correct an answer.</p>

[MysterionMuffles]

link doesn't work though I would appreciate if it did, as some UPB aspects are tough to understand

[Guest darkskyabove]

The "UPB Universally Preferable Behavior simplified" link is broken.

The other link is valid:

http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2013/01/upb-faq.html

[Guest darkskyabove]

After fixing the link, I went and read the blog (yeeeegh!) Had I only known.

Stefan would, probably, not agree, but here is my response to the link's fallacious mudhole:

I'd like to relate a story. It is a
post-apocalyptic story, so, with the nearing apocalyptic economic
crises, and with the latest generation's saturation with video games,
my story should captivate most, if not all, that are still breathing.

So, my story goes, the end has already
happened. All of Earth's governments went bankrupt and collapsed.
Leaving the remnant of surviving humanity to its own devices. True
"anarchy" at last. No laws, no police, no courts, no
grocery stores. Every one for themselves.

Now, there's already been massive loss
of life. And I mean MASSIVE. Of the 6+ billion humans, over 5 billion
were wiped out. Erased. In a matter of months. (Wow, that's what I'd
call Megadeth)

Let's pick up the story where YOU, a
survivor, are conflicted over your moral choices: to accept some
"universal" morality, to be "amoral", or to fudge
the line somewhere in between.

Well, I could try to give you some
"rational" argument for morality. But, I won't. What I will
provide is a more visceral interpretation. Just in case any still
believe that morality is some "ivory tower" concept,
bandied about by their elders.

There YOU are, faced with a moral
dilemma. Should you just take this other person's food (killing them
if necessary) because you are hungry? To YOUR knowledge, no one else
is around. No witnesses (wink, wink). Think hard. Your very existence
depends upon your actions.

If you refrain from making an immoral
decision (you do not steal the food, you do not commit assault, or
murder), you win!!!

If you succumb to evil, and commit the
act, you LOSE.

Why? Because, I, or someone like me, is
watching, or will discover the truth. And if you choose wrong, it
will cost you your life. If you wish to choose evil, you are a threat
to others. And some of those others aren't playing games with
philosophy.

For you, and your born or unborn
children's sake, please, understand. The only reason evil has
flourished is that it is supported by the State. Without the State to
interfere, I am free to go thug-hunting. Because I practice a very
literal form of the Non-Aggression Principle. Abide by it, and I will
be the best friend you didn't know you had. Violate it: all bets are
off. Except the bet that you will die.

Run that through your debate processor
and find all the nit-picky holes in my reasoning. Oh, you can't:
because your already dead. There's your moral dilemma, in a nutshell.

It's easy to "debate" reality
from a comfy chair in front of a computer monitor. Try it out in the
wilds, or in a dark alley at 2:00AM, or when dealing with YOUR
government.

Some may ask: Why didn't such a moral
principle take root long ago, before Statism? I assume it was because
they didn't know any better. The abuses of power were not as fully
understood, at least not publicly. WE know now. You may not, but, WE
do.

And if you think mine is just another
metaphoric example: keep on thinking that. Every prediction of the
end has been based on everything but reality. The reality is that
humans have sown the seeds of their own destruction. And its name is
bankruptcy: can you spell GREECE?, or CYPRUS? Do you believe you'll
receive an email warning you of the collapse of your government? The
financial problems of the US Empire dwarf those of the
aforementioned. Do you think it can't happen here?

Soldier on, in your "belief"
that morality is just a word to dissect and find fatuous disagreement
with. There are plenty of so-called humans that will play the game
with you. You may wish to consider THEIR motives, or lack thereof.

Me, I'll play the safe money. Treat
people with dignity and respect. So far it's worked magically. Oh,
and I already live on the edge of the wilds, so when the shit hits
the fan (and it will, soon) I won't need YOUR arm-chair philosophy to
survive. (And I don't need no grocery store; but, I'll bet you do.)

[TDB]

Not clear what you are responding to with yeeeegh, my faq or another "simplification", my interpretation of UPB or UPB itself. If my interpretation is off and you understand UPB, please help me fix it. If you want to argue against UPB, maybe start a different thread? FOr me at least, this thread is about what is UPB, how to explain it. I am not sure enough that I understand what it is for me to either argue for or against it.

[TDB]

Did you ever get a look at it?

[TDB]

 

After fixing the link, I went and read the blog (yeeeegh!) Had I only known.

Stefan would, probably, not agree, but here is my response to the link's fallacious mudhole:

 

I didn't understand how your story related to my apparently inaccurate summary of UPB. Could you please give me an example of a fallacy that I committed?

[Guest darkskyabove]

I do owe you a better analysis after posting my irate rant about ivory tower morality vs applied morality.

I will work on it and get back to you with a, hopefully, fair and balanced critique.

Apologies for the rant. I've been dealing with this stuff for many years; this is the first venue I've felt comfortable with to examine not only the ideas of others, but to put my own views to the test.

I can provide a teaser at the moment. After pulling up your FAQ again I realized I was put off immediately by the first statement: "I want to explain UPB to you. Unfortunately, I don't claim to understand it myself." My understanding of an FAQ is that it provides answers, not more questions, and should simplify rather than complicate the issue.

In my re-examination I will now be able to put that aside and dig in.

[TDB]

 

I do owe you a better analysis after posting my irate rant about ivory tower morality vs applied morality.

I will work on it and get back to you with a, hopefully, fair and balanced critique.

 

After pulling up your FAQ again I realized I was put off immediately by the first statement: "I want to explain UPB to you. Unfortunately, I don't claim to understand it myself." My understanding of an FAQ is that it provides answers, not more questions, and should simplify rather than complicate the issue.

 

Great!

Well, I was looking for a FAQ, could not find one, decided to start one. But I could not claim I had a deep understanding. I need a FAQ! It was an invitation to start a discussion that I hoped would end up producing a reasonable FAQ. Gotta start somewhere.

I think Stef suffers from the problem of being too close to it. There's a cute phrase in psychology that I've forgotten (curse of the expert?), basically means that someone who is an expert on X, while trying to explain something about X to a total beginner, has a tendency to leave out important stuff that has become so obvious to him that he no longer even thinks about it. He's not aware that he's leaving stuff out, but to the beginner it is just incomprehensible. 

I think one of my problems was that I just didn't get it why Stef would say something like (paraphrasing) if it's good to kill you must always be killing. I kept thinking, there are plenty of things I do that are good, but I don't do them all the time. I think I've got the interpretation now. In UPB world, theres not good and bad, there's bad and not bad (may also include neutral, aesthetic). If X is bad, you must never do X, so you must always be doing not X. So if "not raping" is bad, you must always be raping. Bad is defined as all the stuff that rates defense/arrest/punishment, all the actions that rate retaliation. So if killing rates retaliation, you must always be not killing. If not killing rates retaliation, you must always be killing.

Anyhow, with my shiny new interpretation, I think I might understand the case of "never rape" vs. "always rape". Why not even consider the alternative "sometimes rape"? Because then we have to come up with some new term that specifies what sort of rape would be forbidden and punishable and another word or adjective to specify the kinds of rape that are not. So if rape is bad, you must always be not raping. If "not raping" is bad, you must always be raping. And Stef's subsequent discussion makes more sense. It has to be possible for someone to be good at all times, to be good is to avoid the bad, if not doing something is bad, you must be doing it at all times. And because we can't do much of anything all the time, other than breathing and metabolizing, all obligations are negative obligations.

Of course, that demonstrates another problem I have, in that it seems that "never kill" is UPB, but it's not. We can fix it by switching to "never murder", but that just passes the problem down the line, because then we need to decide in each case, was this killing justified by self-defense, or was it murder? Maybe I was expecting too much. I need to straighten this out in my head, maybe I should go through the book again.

 

Am I babbling, or does that sort of make sense? I want to think about those positive obligations some more, later.