cmac3721 Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Moral beliefs, in order to rise above mere opinion, must be applicable to everyone. There is no logically consistent way to say that Person A must do X, but Person Y must never do X. If an action is termed "good," then it must be good for all people. If I classify the concept "mammal" as "warm-blooded," then it must include all warm-blooded organisms – otherwise the concept is meaningless. The concept "good" must thus encompass the preferred behaviour for all people – not just "Orientals" or "Policemen" or "Americans." If it doesn’t, then it’s just an aesthetic or cultural penchant, like preferring hockey to football, and loses any power for universal prescription. Thus if it is "good" for a politician to use force to take money from you and give it to me, then it is also "good" for anyone else to do it. Because again, what person x does is not fine if person y does it. I mean, its fine you believe in that myth, but there are things that person x can and should do that person y cant due to say ..training and profession Police, doctors, pilots, soldiers, heavy equipment operators, vets, dentists, food inspectors, the list goes on and on things that person X can do, because of training and their job, that person y can't do.example: I cant go around pulling people over for traffic violations. I can't drive a back hoe down the street, I can't drive an 18 wheeler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmac3721 Posted May 9, 2013 Author Share Posted May 9, 2013 I'm confused about the training aspect, it seems their are somethings people can't do which makes the argument non-universal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Training or education is not a question of morality. I am allowed to go to anyone I want to for my medical services, whether or not they are officially accedited in any way.It is a voluntary contract between me and the provider, and they must fill whatever my personal qualifications are - thus it is a preference and not morality. Can you provide an example of a moral rule that is logically true but fail UPB? I am somewhat confused by the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmac3721 Posted May 9, 2013 Author Share Posted May 9, 2013 Ok I was using this as a premise for debate, and the below paragraphs were a few counters that I didn't know how to answer, training and profession would PREVENT just any Person X FROM DOING Y wouldn't it, you can't just operate on somebody without training, or become a machinist etc., doesn't that debunk it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmac3721 Posted May 9, 2013 Author Share Posted May 9, 2013 Example: I cant go around pulling people over for traffic violations. I can't drive a back hoe down the street, I can't drive an 18 wheeler. So person x can't always do why from a universal perspective. his would be reality, once again, proving the "If that guy with training can do it, me without training can as well" crap to be ..well.. crap. Its why we trust the police and military to have weapons in DC, but we dont trust say ... a bunch of people threatening the government to have weapons in DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmac3721 Posted May 9, 2013 Author Share Posted May 9, 2013 what does "upb" mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flake Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 You're arguing that since they have training, they can do something which another person can't, because the other person isn't qualified. This would exonerate the government's actions, if that were the only reason why they didn't allow competition, but it isn't. There are people who have firearms training and investigative training, yet if they wanted to start their own police department, it wouldn't be allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Ok I was using this as a premise for debate, and the below paragraphs were a few counters that I didn't know how to answer, training and profession would PREVENT just any Person X FROM DOING Y wouldn't it, you can't just operate on somebody without training, or become a machinist etc., doesn't that debunk it? No. It would not. The moral position is you are not allowed to do anything to anyone without their permission. In order to get their permission, you may need training or proof of training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 what does "upb" mean. UPB is Universally Preferable Behavior. It is the logical theory of eithics put forward by Stefan. see link here: http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx Its the 3rd book down- obviously free and there is an audiobook version if you desire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRobin Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 I'm confused about the training aspect, it seems their are somethings people can't do which makes the argument non-universal. I'm not sure which argument you mean here. From what I get from your post, you've just proven that being able to drive an 18 wheeler (or having a certain professional qualification) logically can't be the definition fo "good". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts