Is my concise explanation of UPB accurate?

[rhanson]

I’ve been trying really hard to simplify and explain UPB ina way that makes sense to more people. I’ve had some luck with the belowexplanation. I feel it is a more concise way to explain UPB without having toget into the whole “I prefer truth over falsehood” thing that seems to be whatthis conversation always turns in to. But is this an accurate way to explainUPB?

 

I have a preference to not be raped. This preference to notbe raped can be universalized because rape, by its definition, requires anunwilling victim. (If there isn’t an unwilling victim, then it would cease tobe rape and would be a voluntary interaction of some sort.)

No one can prefer to be raped because a person cannot bewilling to be unwilling. A person cannot be something and its opposite at thesame time. This would be a contradiction.

Notice that I don’t have to know the preferences of everyperson in the universe to make this a universal preference. I only have to spotthe contradiction.

“To not be raped” is a universal, objective preference andit applies to all human beings, in all places, and at all times. The same canbe said for murder, assault, theft, and fraud. None of these things can be preferredbecause a preference for them would break their definition, and createcontradictions.

[ritherz]

I'm no expert on UPB, but I must say- I do like your explanation, it makes sense (regardless of whether it's applicable)

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

It is accurate but I still see a long, drawn out discussion over the definitions of words. And frankly, that just can't be avoided.

[rhanson]

 

It is accurate but I still see a long, drawn out discussion over the definitions of words. And frankly, that just can't be avoided.

 

 

A friend of mine uses a very similar explanation of UPB as the one I put above, but before he ever touches the actual argument he defines his terms. Once they reach an agreement on definitions, only then will he make the case for UPB. I think that sounds like an excellent approach, and he says he's had some success with that method.

[Libertus]

No one can prefer to be raped because a person cannot be
willing to be unwilling. A person cannot be something and its opposite at the
same time. This would be a contradiction.

When you say "prefer", aren't you forgetting something? 'Prefer' makes sense only in comparison to something, as in, I prefer X over Y. I think if you just say it like "I prefer X" you might be using the wrong word, so to speak. "I prefer vanilla icecream" doesn't make much sense, unless you also say against what you're measuring it. Chocolate icecream? Dog food?

And couldn't someone for example claim, "I prefer being raped to being killed"? Or, better rape me than hurt my children, if someone puts them in such a position? It's not a voluntary choice either way, btw. but you could still prefer one thing over another, no?

I'm guessing your answer will be, sure, what you mean is, nobody can prefer being raped to not being raped. Is that the implication here? Then you're not really talking about preferring one thing over another, but non-action over action, or something and not something. You can say "I prefer vanilla ice to no vanilla ice" comparing it to nothing, but does that make sense? What is the thing you're preferring vanilla icecream over?

 

 

[rhanson]

 

When you say "prefer", aren't you forgetting something? 'Prefer' makes sense only in comparison to something, as in, I prefer X over Y. I think if you just say it like "I prefer X" you might be using the wrong word, so to speak. "I prefer vanilla icecream" doesn't make much sense, unless you also say against what you're measuring it. Chocolate icecream? Dog food?

And couldn't someone for example claim, "I prefer being raped to being killed"? Or, better rape me than hurt my children, if someone puts them in such a position? It's not a voluntary choice either way, btw. but you could still prefer one thing over another, no?

I'm guessing your answer will be, sure, what you mean is, nobody can prefer being raped to not being raped. Is that the implication here? Then you're not really talking about preferring one thing over another, but non-action over action, or something and not something. You can say "I prefer vanilla ice to no vanilla ice" comparing it to nothing, but does that make sense? What is the thing you're preferring vanilla icecream over?

 

 

That's an interesting point. I haven't really thought about it. Perhaps I am using the term "prefer" incorrectly. If it is incorrect, could I say "No one can prefer to be raped over any other voluntary interaction"? Or is that comparing something to not something still? Is there a reason I can't prefer something to not something?

 

Forgive me if I'm being dense, I haven't considered this before.

[Pepin]

When you say "prefer", aren't you forgetting something? 'Prefer' makes sense only in comparison to something, as in, I prefer X over Y. I think if you just say it like "I prefer X" you might be using the wrong word, so to speak. "I prefer vanilla icecream" doesn't make much sense, unless you also say against what you're measuring it. Chocolate icecream? Dog food?

Ethical statements must have the capability of being universalized, being acted on, and being an action that one prefers. Therefore, the statement "I prefer vanilla ice-cream" cannot have anything do with ethics.

To make the statement "I prefer vanilla ice-cream" into an ethical claim, it would first be essential to add a verb into the mix.

"I prefer eating vanilla ice-cream"

The statement is now one that displays a preference for a behavior, but it is still not an ethical claim because it is not universal in that it binds nobody and is not independent of time and space.To fix this the statement must become

"To be ethical, a person must eat vanilla ice-cream all the time"

The action of eating vanilla ice-cream is now in an absolute category called ethics as opposed to having nothing to do with ethics. Someone who prefers to not eat vanilla ice-cream, and acts on such a prefrence would be considered immoral. There would be so many logical and practical issues with such an ethical claim..

And couldn't someone for example claim, "I prefer being raped to being killed"? Or, better rape me than hurt my children, if someone puts them in such a position? It's not a voluntary choice either way, btw. but you could still prefer one thing over another, no?

What does having to choose between rape or murder have to do with evaluating ethical claims?

Then you're not really talking about preferring one thing over another, but non-action over action, or something and not something. You can say "I prefer vanilla ice to no vanilla ice" comparing it to nothing, but does that make sense? What is the thing you're preferring vanilla icecream over?

Can you prefer sexual intercourse with someone that you do not want have sex with?

Can you prefer eating vanilla ice-cream that you do not want to eat?

Can you prefer any interpersonal action that you don't prefer?

[ribuck]

Doesn't it all just boil down to "Involuntary interactions are not universally preferred"?

That's self-evident, but not very helpful when formulating moral theories. It can only become useful if everyone already accepts that moral principles must be universalisable.

[Pepin]

That's self-evident, but not very helpful when formulating moral theories. It can only become useful if everyone already accepts that moral principles must be universalisable.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the UPB. It is a methodology for validating or invalidating moral theories, just as the scientific method is a methodology for validating or invalidating scientific theories. To be without any rational or scientific methodology for evaluating ethical claims, there could be no way to validate or invalidate moral theories, which would mean the claim that "rape is good" or "rape is bad" would have no objective answer.

Can you expand upon the second sentence? If possible, could you provide a concrete example of what you are saying, preferably in reference to rape.

[ribuck]

Can you expand upon the second sentence? If possible, could you provide a concrete example of what you are saying, preferably in reference to rape.

Suppose someone proposes the moral theory that "It is moral for invading armies to rape the conquered women". As I understand it, you can't use UPB to validate or invalidate that moral theory, because it's too specific. It doesn't apply to all people at all times.

UPB is only useful to people who already accept the postulate that the only testable moral theories are those which are expressed as universals (for example "All involuntary interactions are moral", although the UPB book also accommodates slightly less universal forms on the level of "All rape is moral" but somehow not "All war-rape is moral").

When you're debating with an invading General about the morality of his troops raping the conquered women, you can't use UPB because UPB doesn't consider the proposed moral theory to be universal enough for evaluation. And the General doesn't think that moral theories need to be any more universal than "It is moral for invading armies to rape the conquered women" to be evaluated.

So UPB is not useful in this case. It's only useful to those who already accept that all involuntary interactions are immoral, and those are the very people who don't have any need for UPB.

 

[TheRobin]

But if it isn't universal, why would they expect anyone else to accept the theory?If non-universal moral theories would be valid and respected, literally anyone could make up literally anything and no one would be right to stop anyone from doing whatever they want to do (while at the same time anyone could stop anyone as well).So any moral theory that doesn't apply universally is contradictory from the start (or will lead to inevidable contradictions)

[ribuck]

But if it isn't universal, why would they expect anyone else to accept the theory?

Outside of voluntaryists, most people judge moral validity other than by universality. For example, some people support government taxation on the basis that it's moral to take money from the richest people but not moral to take money from the poorest. Some people believe that "might is right". Some people believe that actions gain legitimacy from historical precedent. There are many candidate alternatives to universality.

If a person accepts UPB, it's not helpful for that person to say to a statist "By my moral system, taxation is not morally valid". The statist will simply reply "By my moral system, taxation is morally valid".

UPB doesn't prove that every valid moral theory must be universal. UPB takes that postulate as given. Therefore, UPB is irrelevant to every person who does not accept that postulate.

If non-universal moral theories would be valid and respected, literally anyone could make up literally anything

Well yes, that's what happens. UPB doesn't stop those people from "making up literally anything". UPB is not useful, because it only makes sense to those who already accept it, and offers no argument that makes sense to those who don't already accept UPB.

[TheRobin]

I think you're missing the point then. Sure, people CAN make up anything, but you can point them towards to contradiction in their thoughts and call it incorrect. Thus evaluating their moral theory.Same with physics, people can make up any story that invalidates basic physical laws or properties, it's just that they're incorrect in their assertions.But to use your own example, people DO expect everyone to follow their moral rules (like that you can't resist taxation for instance, because they call it moral), so by definition they do already accept that it must be based on principles that are binding for everyone. (Else they wouldn't call it morals, but merely opinion)

[ribuck]

Sure, people CAN make up anything, but you can point them towards to contradiction in their thoughts and call it incorrect.

There is no contradiction in their thoughts, because they don't start with the postulate that every valid moral theory must be universalisable. UPB does not prove that all moral theories must be universalisable. It just takes that as a given, then uses it as a way to test the validity of moral theories.

But to use your own
example, people DO expect everyone to follow their moral rules (like
that you can't resist taxation for instance, because they call it
moral), so by definition they do already accept that it must be based on
principles that are binding for everyone.

Their moral rule ("It is moral for a tax collector to collect taxes") is not universal. Based on UPB, the strongest statement I can make to these people is: "If you agree that every moral theory must be universalisable, then your moral theory about taxation would not be not valid".

[Pepin]

 

 

Can you expand upon the second sentence? If possible, could you provide a concrete example of what you are saying, preferably in reference to rape.

 

Suppose someone proposes the moral theory that "It is moral for invading armies to rape the conquered women". As I understand it, you can't use UPB to validate or invalidate that moral theory, because it's too specific. It doesn't apply to all people at all times.

If the statement were true, then logically the following statement must be true

­­

"To be moral, conquered women must submit to rape from invading armies"

Such a statement could not be fulfilled because the women would have no ability to prefer a state of being that is the opposite of what they prefer.

To go further, UPB can't allow for arbitrary distinctions that logically or rationally have no effect on reality, because this would contradict the aim of the theory to describe reality.

If distinctions or exceptions are to be made, they must be rational and empirically verified. For instance, the theory that:

"Consensual sex between to people is good"

Could not apply to children because children have no ability to consent to such an act. The basis for this statement is not in opinion, yet rather in the science of: biology, psychology, and neurology.

This is all to say that unless there is a rational reason to separate people into the category of "women" and "armies" (which might have women in them), then the statement must be generalized to a higher classification because the distinction being made isn't relevant to the claim. This would turn the statement to:

"It is moral for invading people to rape the conquered people"

With the generalization, the statement cannot be a universal statement because in order for it to be true, different behaviors must being prescribed to the same class which is contradictory.

[TheRobin]

well, they do want everyone to follow their rules at all times, how is that not a universal?But what I meant is that if there are different rules for person A and person B. And if person A and B both can make up any rules they want without principles than naturally they will contradict at some point. So there is a contradiction there. And if you don't want that contradiction then you'll inevidably have to start making claims that are the same for all individuals regardless of sex,age,costume etc.Basically if they wish for their morals to be more than an excuse to use violence against peaceful people they have to start from some principles. So unless they can show how logically person A must be treated the exact opposite way of person B they lose their case and their theory falls.

[rhanson]

Regarding my original post...

I just realized that I did notexplain UPB at all. I’m using the UPB framework to evaluate a moral theory(the non-aggression principle), but I’m not actually describing UPB itself.

Itjust clicked for me that UPB is a methodology for validating moral theories andnot a moral theory itself.

I’m sorry if this caused any confusion.

[ribuck]

Basically if they wish for their morals to be more than an excuse to use violence against peaceful people they have to start from some principles. So unless they can show how logically person A must be treated the exact opposite way of person B they lose their case and their theory falls.

Yes, sure, I completely agree with this. But it has a precondition ("if they wish for their morals to be more than an excuse to use violence against peaceful people").

I was referring to the situation where the moraliser doesn't accept that precondition, e.g.:

The King: "It is moral for my armies to rape the conquered women"
Philosopher: "According to UPB, that is not a valid moral theory because it cannot be universalised"
The King: "Yeah? Well according to Divine Right of Kings, universalisation is not required, so it is a valid moral theory"
Philosopher: "Um..."

Your precondition ("if they wish for their morals to be more than an excuse to use violence against peaceful people") will lead to a test which rejects moral theories that provide an excuse to use violence against peaceful people. The King's precondition (that his morals be consistent with the Divine Right of Kings) will lead to a test that rejects moral theories that forbid the king from doing whatever he declares to be right.

That's the paradox of UPB. It's only applicable to those who don't need it.

[DaVinci]

I run into that a lot. People have very different interpretations of what is moral.

[TheRobin]

 

The King: "It is moral for my armies to rape the conquered women"
Philosopher: "According to UPB, that is not a valid moral theory because it cannot be universalised"
The King: "Yeah? Well according to Divine Right of Kings, universalisation is not required, so it is a valid moral theory"

Philosopher: "So, according to the Divine Right of Kings, we have to obey the Kigns wishes, right?"
King :"right"
Philosopher: "So do you obey every other Kings wished then?"
King "What, no, sure not"
Philosopher: "So, it's not good to obey the wishes of Kings then?"
King: "Well, it's good for everyone else to do that."
Philosopher: "So, what's the relevant difference between you, the King, and everyone else then, that allows for this?"
King:" I was chosen by God to lead everyone else."
Philosopher: "Ok, can you prove that?"
King: "...well..."
Philosopher :"Okay, so basically you're a dude just like everyone else, but you claim WE get to do what YOU want, but YOU don't have to obey any rules at all?"
King: "..well....erm..."

 

Your precondition ("if they wish for their morals to be more than an excuse to use violence against peaceful people") will lead to a test which rejects moral theories that provide an excuse to use violence against peaceful people. The King's precondition (that his morals be consistent with the Divine Right of Kings) will lead to a test that rejects moral theories that forbid the king from doing whatever he declares to be right.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "morals" then, if you say they're nothing more than an excuse to inflict violence. Simply using the word "morals" doesn't automatically make the claim valid (or about morals it seems). I might as well use the word "cat" describe the Easter Bunny at that point.

[ribuck]

I'm not sure what you mean by "morals" then, if you say they're nothing more than an excuse to inflict violence.

I didn't actually say that. I gave an example of Kings who have used "morals" as an excuse to inflict violence.

Simply using the word "morals" doesn't automatically make the claim valid (or about morals it seems). I might as well use the word "cat" describe the Easter Bunny at that point.

Good. Finally we agree! Simply using the word "morals" serves no purpose at all!

Those who want to inflict violence will use "morals" to show that the infliction of violence is justified. Those who oppose the infliction of violence will use "morals" to show that the infliction of violence is unjustified.

Those who want to inflict violence will define valid moral theories as those which allow them to inflict violence. Those who oppose the infliction of violence will define valid moral theories as those which exclude the infliction of violence.

Tests of moral validity (such as UPB or the Divine Right of Kings) bring nothing useful to the table, because they are not, and never will be, universally recognised. And if the tests of moral validity are not universally recognised, the "morals" (sets of moral theories) that pass those tests will not be universally recognised either.