Destroying UPB

[Tadas]

So I signed here to prove that UPB is void and baseless.

 

and here is main problem of UPB and all other moral principles:

they all rely on definitions of "human being" which is not really available everyone just skips that part as self evident or refers to biology as scientific proof that humans are animals that belong to certain class of primates.

 

lets use non violence principle as example:  we are allowed to use aggression on rocks, trees or even animals and everything but not on people.

thus if I want to use aggression on certain people I will just exclude them from definition of humans beings and that way my actions will be completely moral

( I declare black as non human animals thus i have moral right to hunt and enslave them as much as i want)

 

also If I make certain definition of humans and later change it at will I can effectively do anything i want and still keep all principles intact.

(my neighbor Peter is non human because my human definition now excludes those with name Peter for one week) 

 

 

To make any moral principles workable we need to start with universal definition to whom they apply  and this definition must be eternal and unchangeable for all time and all possible situations as if we are visited by aliens.  it must be something eternal and obvious like number pi.

if such definition is impossible, idea of universal moral principles is void. It is useless to even discuss rules if it is not know to whom they apply.

 

do not forget advancement in technology and manipulation because if we define humans being like something what has human body and mind but at same time it can be remotely controlled by someone/something  else it will be a problem. 

 

(for example I start making my clones programmed to rob and kill kill other people or generally just obey me ,same thing as religions does.

they are all independent individuals but they are performing my will so it would be logical to treat them as extensions of my body and if one of them murders someone everyone must be punished. if you treat them as individual human beings you will be just outnumbered.)

 

[Wesley]

Science has objectively defined the human being.

 

From the wiki:

 

 

Humans (variously Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only extant species of the genus Homo.^[2][3] Humans are distinguished from other primates by their bipedal locomotion, and especially by their relatively larger brain with its particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, which enable high levels of abstract reasoning, language, problem solving, and culture through social learning. Humans use tools to a much higher degree than any other animal, and are the only extant species known to build fires and cook their food, as well as the only known species to clothe themselves and create and use numerous other technologies and arts. The scientific study of humans is the discipline of anthropology.

Humans are uniquely adept at utilizing systems of symbolic communication such as language and art for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families and kinship networks to states. Social interactions between humans have established an extremely wide variety of values, social norms, and rituals, which together form the basis of human society. The human desire to understand and influence their environment, and explain and manipulate phenomena, has been the foundation for the development of science, philosophy, mythology, and religion.

The human lineage diverged from the last common ancestor with its closest living relative, the chimpanzee, some five million years ago, evolving into the australopithecines and eventually the genus Homo.^[4] The first Homo species to move out of Africa was Homo erectus, the African variety of which, together with Homo heidelbergensis, is considered to be the immediate ancestor of modern humans.^[5][6]Homo sapiens originated in Africa, where it reached anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago and began to exhibit full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago.^[7]Homo sapiens proceeded to colonize the continents, arriving in Eurasia 125,000–60,000 years ago,^[8][9]Australia around 40,000 years ago, the Americas around 15,000 years ago, and remote islands such as Hawaii, Easter Island, Madagascar, and New Zealand between the years AD 300 and 1280.^[10][11]

Humans began to practice sedentary agriculture about 12,000 years ago, domesticating plants and animals which allowed for the growth of civilization. Humans subsequently established various forms of government, religion, and culture around the world, unifying people within a region and leading to the development of states and empires. The rapid advancement of scientific and medical understanding in the 19th and 20th centuries led to the development of fuel-driven technologies and improved health, causing the human population to rise exponentially. With individuals widespread in every continent except Antarctica, humans are a cosmopolitan species. By 2012 the global human population was estimated to be around 7 billion.^[12][13]

 

However, most definitions extend "humanity" to not just include humans, but to encompass any species (real or theoretical) that would be capable of moral thinking.

[Tadas]

I think all this article does not even resemble definition it writes about humans but not defines what are humans or how to distinguish humans from for example chair or mannequin

and even if we take it term species is very vague, and arbitrary, because you can claim that black people are another species.

 

and talking about moral thinking there is a problem if you equate species with individuals, because even if species are capable of moral thinking individuals do not necessary follow that general rule, there can be dog capable of moral thinking and there can be human who is incapable

 

so if certain individual who is capable of moral thinking will belong to species who are generally incapable to that he will be denied human rights. while individual without capability of moral thinking who belong to species capable of that will receive these rights 

[Wesley]

I think all this article does not even resemble definition it writes about humans but not defines what are humans or how to distinguish humans from for example chair or mannequin

 

In biology there qre 8 signs of life.

 

energy
reproduction
stimuli (5 senses)
growth
cell structure
adaptation
balance
organization

 

These separate life from non-life

 

and even if we take it term species is very vague, and arbitrary, because you can claim that black people are another species.

 

The difference between species (that participate in sexual reproduction) is the ability to produce fertile offspring. Another race (presumably you mean white) can have sex with a black person and they can produce fertile offspring, thus they are the same species.

 

There also is occasionally a difference of geographical separation between species. This does not apply to humans. No biologist would say that a different race of people would be a different species that I have ever heard of who is practicing biology today.

 

and talking about moral thinking there is a problem if you equate species with individuals, because even if species are capable of moral thinking individuals do not necessary follow that general rule, there can be dog capable of moral thinking and there can be human who is incapable

 

There is no dog ever that has been capable of moral thinking. They do not have the brain structure for it to be possible. If they could be proven to have such thinking, then they would become moral agents and morality would apply to them.

 

so if certain individual who is capable of moral thinking will belong to species who are generally incapable to that he will be denied human rights. while individual without capability of moral thinking who belong to species capable of that will receive these rights

 

Morality is not a right, it is a responsibility. Morality means that if someone kills another, then they can be responsible for the action rather than just being an animal acting on animalistic instincts. If my dog kills someone, then it is my responsibility, not the dog's. If the dog had moral thinking, then it is the dog's fault and not mine.

 

 

 

There are gray areas in biology, but this does not make it subjective. It is still science.

 

Just like there is no such thing as perfectly clean water (maybe there is, but not that I could make), however there is a massive and objectively quantifiable difference between sea water and drinking water as far as its ability to satiate me.

[Tadas]

Ok, so assume that I genetically manipulate humans being to be incapable to have children with other humans beings (or merely make it infetrile) does that mean it is another species?

and if is genetically manipulate pig to be capable to get pregnant from human does this also turn that pig into human?

 

all of that follows from your biological definition which is valid for natural world where no such tings happen but here we are talking about rules of the game where goals is to win at all cost so if i find that i can find a loophole i will do all i can to exploit it for personal gain. 

 

and if we are talking about real science you cant use argument "no biologist" because this assumes that biologists have some exclusive rights to make definitions

if that is valid I can just get biologist label and define my own definition which you are forced to obey

 

 

just because there is no dog capable of moral thinking found yet it does not mean all dogs must be denied of human rights. 

this is quite same as if all jews whom i met were thieves then all whom i will meet in future will be same.

 

it has nothing to do with responsibility,  you are using supposed lack of moral thinking as your right of ownership.

like if dog is unable of moral thinking i have right to own it. and by fact of ownership you actually deny him ability to prove moral thinking ability because you are responsible for all actions.

[Pepin]

I am having a difficult time taking this argument seriously. It feels analogous to someone going up to a doctor who just pronounced someone dead and asking them "how can you say that if you can't really say what death is?" and then proceeds to ask "how do you know that you are working on is a human?".

[Tadas]

I am having a difficult time taking this argument seriously. It feels analogous to someone going up to a doctor who just pronounced someone dead and asking them "how can you say that if you can't really say what death is?" and then proceeds to ask "how do you know that you are working on is a human?".

 

 

We are talking about laws and rules that restrict my freedom so basically I must have enough justification to obey them.

If you make "demand do not kill" my natural question what I get for that.

and if we write contract "do not kill humans in exchange for something" i will see how broadly this demand applies and how much I can do without violating my contract.

 

life is a game where morality is your game rules and your goal is to win. and winner is one who manages to walk on the very edge of the rules without falling down. 

[PatrickC]

do not forget advancement in technology and manipulation because if we define humans being like something what has human body and mind but at same time it can be remotely controlled by someone/something  else it will be a problem. 

 

(for example I start making my clones programmed to rob and kill kill other people or generally just obey me ,same thing as religions does.

they are all independent individuals but they are performing my will so it would be logical to treat them as extensions of my body and if one of them murders someone everyone must be punished. if you treat them as individual human beings you will be just outnumbered.)

 

Tell me Tadas, you're a reporter for the Onion right? Sent to disprove UPB with the argument from Sci Fi..

[Tadas]

I have no frustrations, no problems except that I would label myself as covert schizoid personality. 

as I do not have any specific respect for humans I see everyone as equal no matter if it is amoeba human or even state. and I will threat everything in exactly same way

according to Wikipedia schizoid people usually do not accept any hierarchy in life it is all absolutely flat.

and thus my thinking may be incompatible with most who have hierarchy of values intrinsically beveling that for example human is more valuable than dog.

 

I think that giving exclusive rights to humans because of some non universal traits is against logic.

and it is same as limiting these rights to specific individuals.

this is standard procedure in humans life when we define people close to us as Us and everyone else as evil Them  and so our morality does not apply to them.

Will be paid  to kill my enemies just because they are born on other land while i will go to jail if I kill someone from this land.

 

In result everything starts from dehumanization, you just exclude your target from human concept and then you do whatever you want

or in reverse if someone manages to get human label he obtains all rights he was lacking before, like black people who were regarded non human got their right by famous speech which claim that black people are also human.

 

If such loophole is open why even bother with declaring any morality principles?

what is meaning of all that mental acrobatic?

just do whatever you want and stop lying to yourself and everyone.

[Guest - Josh -]

So I signed here to prove that UPB is void and baseless.

 

Hi Tadas,

 

I'm sorry that you're getting a lot of negative feedback here, but perhaps you took too much on. I don't think it is possible to disprove UPB without appealing to some objective standard. In that case, arguing against UPB is a self refuting position.

 

Have you read the book? I'm somewhat familiar with it, having listened to a few of Mr. Molyneux's videos. If you have questions or concerns about UPB, that's perfectly fine to share those. If you're going to claim that UPB is invalid, you will be taking on an impossible task. Even if it were possible, it could not occur in one post.

 

 

 

 

and here is main problem of UPB and all other moral principles:

 

Then your issue isn't specifically with UPB, but moral principles in general, right?

 

 

 

 

they all rely on definitions of "human being" which is not really available everyone just skips that part as self evident or refers to biology as scientific proof that humans are animals that belong to certain class of primates.

 

Humans are the only known species capable of reason. Therefore, any objective framework for ethics we use must apply to human beings. A lion that kills its prey is not considered a murderer, but a human being who kills another is. Why is that? Well, because one is capable of reason (assuming they are not damaged beyond the capacity to comprehend the nature of their crime) and the other is fueled by instinct. You simply cannot logically expect the same ethical accountability from a dog as you can a human being.

 

 

 

 

lets use non violence principle as example:  we are allowed to use aggression on rocks, trees or even animals and everything but not on people.

 

Rocks, trees, and animals neither possess reason nor have any potential for reason -- at least as far as I know; I'm not a biologist. I do know that animals may show high levels of intelligence, even self-recognition. Many animals also have varying capacities for empathy. Yet empathy is an emotion, and cannot be the foundation of an objective framework for ethics.

 

 

 

 

thus if I want to use aggression on certain people I will just exclude them from definition of humans beings and that way my actions will be completely moral

( I declare black as non human animals thus i have moral right to hunt and enslave them as much as i want)

 

also If I make certain definition of humans and later change it at will I can effectively do anything i want and still keep all principles intact.

(my neighbor Peter is non human because my human definition now excludes those with name Peter for one week)

 

This has been done in the past to many groups of people, from German Jews to Native Americans to African Americans. However one cannot rationally conclude that other human beings aren't human. The science proves that the genetics are virtually the same no matter who you are. Any attempt to declare fellow humans as "non human" would be special pleading, a fallacy where you are the exception -- despite having no rational justification for the exception.

 

 

 

 

To make any moral principles workable we need to start with universal definition to whom they apply  and this definition must be eternal and unchangeable for all time and all possible situations as if we are visited by aliens.  it must be something eternal and obvious like number pi.

if such definition is impossible, idea of universal moral principles is void. It is useless to even discuss rules if it is not know to whom they apply.

 

do not forget advancement in technology and manipulation because if we define humans being like something what has human body and mind but at same time it can be remotely controlled by someone/something  else it will be a problem. 

 

(for example I start making my clones programmed to rob and kill kill other people or generally just obey me ,same thing as religions does.

they are all independent individuals but they are performing my will so it would be logical to treat them as extensions of my body and if one of them murders someone everyone must be punished. if you treat them as individual human beings you will be just outnumbered.)

 

I'm a big fan of scifi. I used to watch Stargate and Star Trek as a kid. I understand your concern.

 

Extraterrestrial life is pretty much a given in the odds department. Whether or not any of that life is sentient or capable of reason remains to be seen. Of course, in the event that there are other civilizations out there, UPB would not become invalid, as though it were for humans only. Technological advancement is irrelevant to whether or not another species deserves to be respected. In the event that any race, be it humans or aliens, reach the capabilities of terraforming, I doubt seriously anyone will have to worry about being colonized or made extinct. If an encounter were to ever happen, it would not be a remake of Spanish colonialism. I would hope any sufficiently advanced race of beings would already understand property rights and respect of all persons.

 

UPB would still be valid had asteroids not whiped out the dinosaurs and we were all sentient descendants of raptors. Apart from the ability to reason, there is nothing special about our genetic makeup. Therefore UPB would apply to humans or aliens whether they were capable of emotions like empathy or not (because UPB is grounded in logic and reasoning). I would imagine an advanced race of beings must have the capacity for reason, else they wouldn't have much of a civilization.

 

 

 

 

I feel very frustrated reading your posts Tadas...like a tightening in my stomach and I don't know why. What do you feel writing your posts? Especially about the part where you say that some humans can be labeled "not humans" which is very degrading for different types of people, I feel that tightening frustration. Also about having UPB as a rule and trying to walk on the edge you say. It seems very manipulative...

 

I'm going to guess that you aren't really trying to argue against or to disprove UPB... there's something that's probably bothering that is much more fundamental such as the frustrations around how you were treated as a young man/woman? What was your childhood like?

 

chiwoojo,

 

I can understand your frustration, but I think you're confusing his examples with what he actually supports.

 

I agree that what he is saying doesn't really address UPB, but there's no need to poison the well. Suggesting that what he is saying isn't actually his thoughts but pent up frustrations from the past seems manipulative to me. Asking him what his childhood was like is moot because (I'm going to go ahead and assume) none of us here had a flawless upbringing to say the least. 

 

 

 

 

I have no frustrations, no problems except that I would label myself as covert schizoid personality. 

as I do not have any specific respect for humans I see everyone as equal no matter if it is amoeba human or even state. and I will threat everything in exactly same way

according to Wikipedia schizoid people usually do not accept any hierarchy in life it is all absolutely flat.

and thus my thinking may be incompatible with most who have hierarchy of values intrinsically beveling that for example human is more valuable than dog.

 

I think that giving exclusive rights to humans because of some non universal traits is against logic.

and it is same as limiting these rights to specific individuals.

this is standard procedure in humans life when we define people close to us as Us and everyone else as evil Them  and so our morality does not apply to them.

Will be paid  to kill my enemies just because they are born on other land while i will go to jail if I kill someone from this land.

 

In result everything starts from dehumanization, you just exclude your target from human concept and then you do whatever you want

or in reverse if someone manages to get human label he obtains all rights he was lacking before, like black people who were regarded non human got their right by famous speech which claim that black people are also human.

 

If such loophole is open why even bother with declaring any morality principles?

what is meaning of all that mental acrobatic?

just do whatever you want and stop lying to yourself and everyone.

 

Tadas,

 

I find it difficult to understand how you can equate an amoeba with a human, whether in terms of value or moral accountability. I do sense a concern on your part for how people treat others and how people treat animals; I also share that concern. Abusing animals, for example, is an indication that something is seriously wrong in the life of the abuser. It's also heart wrenching to see or hear about that sort of thing.

 

However as for your points, a government is an abstraction, not a being. If you see all creatures as equal, a state would not logically be included in that set.

 

I'd like to take a look at that specific article you referenced. Could you provide a link?

 

Dehumanization and xenophobia are problems, but those things are fundamentally grounded in irrational beliefs and perverted emotions. People who practice both make exceptions for themselves and their "kind," but this is of course an example of special pleading. 

 

I think it is invalid to compare an objective framework for ethics of which humans are solely capable of to an irrational hatred.

[Tadas]

Yes I red that article and listened to many of his videos and all that look quite utopical without any connection to reality.

We van examine this principle as some abstract framework but it is far from reality because of some reasons that make my receive bad feedback when i mention them

people seem to prefer closing eyes and just ignoring reality and expecting that everything will go as they want against the laws of nature.

 

 

Humans are the only known species capable of reason. Therefore, any objective framework for ethics we use must apply to human beings. A lion that kills its prey is not considered a murderer, but a human being who kills another is. Why is that? Well, because one is capable of reason (assuming they are not damaged beyond the capacity to comprehend the nature of their crime) and the other is fueled by instinct. You simply cannot logically expect the same ethical accountability from a dog as you can a human being.

 

 

I disagree with that. i do not care if someone was killed by lion or human this is equally evil and thus lion is evil machine which must be destroyed just as human murderer is evil machine which does the on purpose. not because it did something evil but because it is device designed to produce evil. 

 

Rocks, trees, and animals neither possess reason nor have any potential for reason -- at least as far as I know; I'm not a biologist. I do know that animals may show high levels of intelligence, even self-recognition. Many animals also have varying capacities for empathy. Yet empathy is an emotion, and cannot be the foundation of an objective framework for ethics.

 

 problem with that claims is why do you even try to use this capacity as deciding factor does it make difference if someone is capable of high level intelligence not not?

this is simply discrimination according to intelligence levels assuming that those tho are smarter are superior people who deserve more rights.

 

 

This has been done in the past to many groups of people, from German Jews to Native Americans to African Americans. However one cannot rationally conclude that other human beings aren't human. The science proves that the genetics are virtually the same no matter who you are. Any attempt to declare fellow humans as "non human" would be special pleading, a fallacy where you are the exception -- despite having no rational justification for the exception.

 

yes this was the case as human definition gets new members all time. I expect that soon we may declare dolphins as humans or who knows what in future, maybe some scientist will find that rats are capable of moral thinking.

 and  we are talking not about biological human definition but about beings to whom your moral principles apply. 

 

 

I find it difficult to understand how you can equate an amoeba with a human, whether in terms of value or moral accountability. I do sense a concern on your part for how people treat others and how people treat animals; I also share that concern. Abusing animals, for example, is an indication that something is seriously wrong in the life of the abuser. It's also heart wrenching to see or hear about that sort of thing.

 

 

even if I feel bad about abusing animal or humans I understand that this is my private emotion and I have no right to enforce it on anyone else

just as i said earlier, it does not matter who initiated certain action that thing is responsible if it did it on its own will.

if there is a machine designed for destruction it must be eliminated as practical measure and if this is something useful it must be protected and loved.

if someone on purpose burns forest or kills my beloved dog he deserves same fate as murdering human being

 

 

However as for your points, a government is an abstraction, not a being. If you see all creatures as equal, a state would not logically be included in that set.

 

 

Actually i believe that state is absolute requirement to maintain any sensible level of anarchy. without state we will immediately fall into slavery which will require insane effort to escape 

So, Stefan is absolutely wrong in that regard

state does not require inequality, because every citizen can be interchangeable  as if I can put police uniform and become policeman or doctor if i have knowledge required and act as if i am representative of state

state is not absolute evil, it must just be well designed to optimize our happiness or whatever we desire.

 

 

I'd like to take a look at that specific article you referenced. Could you provide a link?

 

which article?

 

Dehumanization and xenophobia are problems, but those things are fundamentally grounded in irrational beliefs and perverted emotions. People who practice both make exceptions for themselves and their "kind," but this is of course an example of special pleading. 

 

I think it is invalid to compare an objective framework for ethics of which humans are solely capable of to an irrational hatred.

 

 

everyone with irrational belief will equally say that your belief is irrational,  especially if you do not have any better criteria 

Entire statement that your belief is rational is just same discrimination and dehumanization as you see those other beings as inferior, who need to be taught of correct way of life.

[JamesP]

Dang... just... dang.

[Lowe D]

You will of course present these ideas at your nearest zoo, in case any of its residents might be human.

[Lians]

Dang... just... dang.

Trolls aren't even trying to be subtle any more. I blame the public school system for the lack of sophisticated trolling.

[wdiaz03]

...I see everyone as equal no matter if it is amoeba human or even state. and I will threat everything in exactly same way

according to Wikipedia schizoid people usually do not accept any hierarchy in life it is all absolutely flat.

 

....I disagree with that. i do not care if someone was killed by lion or human this is equally evil and thus lion is evil machine which must be destroyed just as human murderer is evil machine which does the on purpose. not because it did something evil but because it is device designed to produce evil. 

 

.......if there is a machine designed for destruction it must be eliminated as practical measure and if this is something useful it must be protected and loved.

if someone on purpose burns forest or kills my beloved dog he deserves same fate as murdering human being

 

...

 

I'm curious..What do you eat exactly? And how do you live with yourself afterwards?

[Stefan Molyneux]

hint: the word "destroying" is not a hint

[Stephen C]

Tadas, what would it look like if I lived my life operating off the belief that UPB was not void and baseless?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

UPB applies whether you decide X person is human (Human, intelligent alien, inter-dimensional time-lord, whatever) or not because you can understand it and have a choice. 

[Kevin Beal]

UPB doesn't require a definition for "human". UPB applies to anything that has the capacity for deliberate moral actions. Humans just so happen to be our only known example of that. If we learned tomorrow that chinchillas can evaluate moral propositions, then we ought start holding them responsible for their crimes

 

Sorry, I haven't read every post in this thread, but has somebody commented on the fact that Tadas is assuming we are human in order to debate the issue? He wouldn't (for example) bring this up with some hamsters, right?

[Guest - Josh -]

I feel very frustrated reading your posts Tadas...like a tightening in my stomach and I don't know why. What do you feel writing your posts? Especially about the part where you say that some humans can be labeled "not humans" which is very degrading for different types of people, I feel that tightening frustration. Also about having UPB as a rule and trying to walk on the edge you say. It seems very manipulative...

 

I'm going to guess that you aren't really trying to argue against or to disprove UPB... there's something that's probably bothering that is much more fundamental such as the frustrations around how you were treated as a young man/woman? What was your childhood like?

 

chiwoojo,

 

When I first came to this thread, Tadas' posts didn't bother me (this may be because I have debated a lot of people online and I am used to whole hosts of nonsense). I was amused by his claims and I let out a big old sigh. However, my smirk turned into a frown when I read your comments because you suggested manipulation on his part (of which I did not detect) before proceeding to make other assumptions about his upbringing. Now, I've seen "Bomb in the Brain, Part 4," and I'm not ruling out the very real possibility that his childhood affects his thinking now, as that can affect anyone. However, making claims about his intentions seemed inappropriate in my opinion. It did not come across as empathetic whatsoever. Although, I don't doubt you were trying to be.

 

 

 

 

John H, 

 

Why do you think my questioning was manipulative? 

 

 

Tadas, 

 

You didn't really go into what your childhood was like, you only mentioned what you think your personality is now at the present. It is interesting to me that you don't see a delineation between animals and humans.

 

Having been treated like a dog all my life, sometimes I didn't see the delineation either. I thought and acted as if the world was just for my taking...winner takes all mentality. I did some bad things in my life as a result. My subconscious thinking was: I'm not going to fucking care about anyone else because who is to say that I have to be nice to people if no one else has for me in my life? The hell with people, I'm gonna take what I want and need regardless without recognizing that there are other people who can hurt because the world sure seems to be running that way. I can kind of sympathize with your situation. 

 

I can feel the injustice that you may have experienced when you say that humans cannot be defined. And surely you probably had some terrible things happen to you in the past that are just horrendous. I think it's important to direct your hatred toward that which has really hurt you rather than a theory on the internet. So then you can start healing imho and to have certainty as to who have hurt you. I'm sorry that there will be a lot of effort on your part to do the healing work but I think it's better than being hurt all the time. And feel free to let us or a therapist know what happened...I think disclosure is an important step to start healing. 

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I understand why Tadas' initial posts sparked an emotional reaction in you that you weren't sure where it was coming from. His concern for arbitrary definitions of who or what is "human" came across to you as his support for dehumanizing people. This upset you because, as you said, you were treated less than human growing up (I am truly sorry for what happened to you, and I can't even begin to relate to that without being insulting). So in asking Tadas about his emotions and his childhood, (rather than correcting his flawed arguments) and in crafting a nightmarish upbringing for him (insisting he had one), you are engaging in manipulative behavior and projection. 

 

The fact is, he may very well be a troll. I don't know. I personally think that English may not be his first language (Learning another language is very difficult, and I wish I could say my Spanish was as good as his English, but I digress). I also think that he hasn't spent enough time thinking about UPB; this is obvious because he's worried about who UPB applies to, and he thinks he can refute it. But this doesn't mean he's channeling his supposedly dreadful childhood. Again, none of us here had a flawless upbringing, and a number of us have not been to therapy, but obviously it hasn't destroyed our capacity to reason. I think it's courteous not to assume others cannot reason simply because they put forth poor arguments. I think "I'm angry about what you said. How was your childhood? Bad, right?" is not a rebuttal, nor does it teach him anything. I'm no therapist, but perhaps laymen talking about each other's childhoods is perfectly safe and appropriate -- on another thread. It may be empathetic there, but as a debate tactic... not so much.

 

I'd like to apologize if I have offended you. I don't mean to condemn you, it's just that I am more concerned with your reaction than his easily dismissible claims. If I have misunderstood you, please correct me. It can be difficult to transmit sincerity via a forum post, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from and that my intent is not to create distortion, or cause harm or distress.

[PatrickC]

My gut (and opinion) tells me that Tadas would be unlikely to accept an apology. He would merely see it as an affront to himself.. I say keep that empathy for those that would benefit from it.

[Guest - Josh -]

My gut (and opinion) tells me that Tadas would be unlikely to accept an apology. He would merely see it as an affront to himself.. I say keep that empathy for those that would benefit from it.

 

xelent,

 

If indeed Tadas has had a troubled past, can you think of someone more deserving of understanding and empathy? Assuming he isn't a troll and he just wanted to come and voice his disagreements, do you honestly think he would feel great after being accused of trolling, being manipulative, being incapable of accepting an apology, etc.? Is it possible to just address his assertions and questions without being condescending? What are the odds of him opening up to an idea, when greeted as he has been by those who support it?

 

When I was a fundamentalist, I had no interest in understanding evolution because Dawkins came across as an unsympathetic, hostile person. It wasn't until I read The Language of God by Francis Collins did I learn to accept the reality. In time, I shed my beliefs in god altogether (thanks to many patient, reasoned arguments).

 

It's not as though I don't understand your frustration. You guys probably get more than your fair share of trolls and poor arguments. But you have got to remember that someone does not simply acknowledge UPB or voluntaryism or atheism overnight. If they encounter people who fail to be empathetic or patient or whatnot, they may never escape their flawed ideas. Just a thought.

[PatrickC]

Hey Josh, you make some good points, but our time and our lives are limited.. I'm just suggesting of course (from xp), but if you feel you have some traction that I have overlooked, then you should indeed ignore me.

[Gnostiphile]

I thought that UPB is something you apply to moral propositions, not humans.  In this way I don't see how defining "human" is relevant, unless it is used in the moral proposition, in which case it would be up to the individual who is making the proposition to define the terms they are using.  If someone can validate or correct me on this I'd appreciate it, thanks.

[JamesP]

UPB does require some attention to detail. Tadas missed a pretty important detail about the definition of a human being, and that rather aggressively.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Well, Tadas seems to have disappeared from the member list. I infer that either, he was a troll, or Josh H was close on target. I tend to the troll conclusion, as I read some of Tadas' posts in other threads (which I'm not going to search for, now that I don't have the ease of using his profile to see what was written).

 

I wonder if it's time for a new subdivision of "troll": quasi-troll. While trolls tend to be blatant, if not at first, then soon, quasi-trolls lure people into a sense of false pedantry, appearing to be humbly in search of knowledge, while actually trying to insinuate their agenda.

 

Yeah, I might have too much time on my hands, but someone's got to figure this crap out...

 

I've already assumed the mantle of "Science Nazi". Don't let me catch you misrepresenting science.

 

Though I agree with Josh H about not condemning those who may be, truly, searching for help, it would be so much more appropriate for seekers to knock off the arrogance. If I am asking you for help, I'm damn sure not going to try to tell you what to say. Kind of defeats the purpose.

[Dave Bockman]

So I signed here to prove that UPB is void and baseless.

 

and here is main problem of UPB and all other moral principles:

 

UBP is not a moral principle, it is a framework for determining whether or not a potential moral rule is valid or invalid.

[RestoringGuy]

UBP is not a moral principle, it is a framework for determining whether or not a potential moral rule is valid or invalid.

 

It is not obvious to me that there is a distinction.  UPB would not be worth the effort to describe, unless it was self-referential and thought to be a morally better framework in itself that we ought to  accept.  Why waste the time to describe UPB, if it only is a systematic way find and label things "valid", and we have no secondary framework against which to compare (as we would with gravitational laws for example)?  A good moral framework would I suspect find it wrong to reject the framework, so the framework just validates itself as just another principle.  There is the same distinction in mathematics between "axioms" and "systems of axioms".  But a system of axioms is really just one axiom, that being a conjunction of all the other axioms.  Conversely, all the original axioms can be deduced logically from this one super-axiom.  Principle and framework seem indistinguishable in any strictly logical way.

[Kevin Beal]

It is not obvious to me that there is a distinction.  UPB would not be worth the effort to describe, unless it was self-referential and thought to be a morally better framework in itself that we ought to  accept.  Why waste the time to describe UPB, if it only is a systematic way find and label things "valid", and we have no secondary framework against which to compare (as we would with gravitational laws for example)?  A good moral framework would I suspect find it wrong to reject the framework, so the framework just validates itself as just another principle.  There is the same distinction in mathematics between "axioms" and "systems of axioms".  But a system of axioms is really just one axiom, that being a conjunction of all the other axioms.  Conversely, all the original axioms can be deduced logically from this one super-axiom.  Principle and framework seem indistinguishable in any strictly logical way.

 

The definition of "principle"

 

 

 

a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

 

A principle is a conclusion. A framework is a methodology, or:

 

 

 

a basic structure underlying a system, concept, or text.

 

You can show a methodology to be false, but there is a difference, and it's important to be precise, especially if what immediately follows is an equivocation between UPB as a "principle" and UPB as a framework. 

[Dave Bockman]

It is not obvious to me that there is a distinction.  UPB would not be worth the effort to describe, unless it was self-referential and thought to be a morally better framework in itself that we ought to  accept.  Why waste the time to describe UPB, if it only is a systematic way find and label things "valid", and we have no secondary framework against which to compare (as we would with gravitational laws for example)?  A good moral framework would I suspect find it wrong to reject the framework, so the framework just validates itself as just another principle.  There is the same distinction in mathematics between "axioms" and "systems of axioms".  But a system of axioms is really just one axiom, that being a conjunction of all the other axioms.  Conversely, all the original axioms can be deduced logically from this one super-axiom.  Principle and framework seem indistinguishable in any strictly logical way.

 

Is the Scientific Method a scientific principle?

[RestoringGuy]

Is the Scientific Method a scientific principle?

If you adhere to it, sure it is a principle dictating how certain to be of the null hypothesis. Rule, method, principle, framework; they all are mechanisms intended to produce mental conclusions. Other than sheer complexity and attitude, what is the difference?

The definition of "principle"

a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

 

A principle is a conclusion. A framework is a methodology, or:

It makes no sense.  How can a principle be "foundational", yet also be derived as a conclusion?    A framework is disproven when a contradiction can be derived, correct?  If I accept certain truths as fundamental, those might also be disproven in some cases.  So far a framework seems a lot like a principle that by chance happens to contain an internal flowchart. 

[Guest darkskyabove]

If you adhere to it, sure it is a principle dictating how certain to be of the null hypothesis. Rule, method, principle, framework; they all are mechanisms intended to produce mental conclusions. Other than sheer complexity and attitude, what is the difference?

 

What is the alternative(s)?

[RestoringGuy]

What is the alternative(s)?

I am not smart enough to know for sure.  I suppose nihilism or Platonism -- at least if one has the idea that some "methodology" exists to seek out a pre-existing truth with regard to ethics. It seems to me either our imperfect ethics is an invention, and remains subject to our individual tolerance for design, or else it is a universal discovery with errors caused only by our mental inability to reliably derive an ethical truth that already exists.  I cannot think of more alternatives.

 

I tend to think of IP and related things in the first category, and non-aggression in the second. The problem is if ethics is invented, then all such methodology to "derive" is ultimately just a shorthand way to remember what was invented. Even if we "ought to" believe ethics is made stronger or better than some shorthand data compression, that too is an invented rule. There is little objective sense invented ethics is "right", just whether the recall method is mentally efficient and elegantly stated.

 

On the other hand, if ethics is discovered, then methodology is self-referential, and that matters because there is a right method to go along with the right conclusions, and one of those conclusions is that the correctness of the method is also a valid conclusion. That seems more coherent to me than ethics being invented and the principles we derive springing into existence (or some state of validity) at the moment some caveman ponders the question.  Caveman invention of rights leaves me wondering "what gives caveman the right?".

[Guest darkskyabove]

Is the Scientific Method a scientific principle?

 

If you adhere to it, sure it is a principle dictating how certain to be of the null hypothesis. Rule, method, principle, framework; they all are mechanisms intended to produce mental conclusions. Other than sheer complexity and attitude, what is the difference?

It makes no sense.  How can a principle be "foundational", yet also be derived as a conclusion?    A framework is disproven when a contradiction can be derived, correct?  If I accept certain truths as fundamental, those might also be disproven in some cases.  So far a framework seems a lot like a principle that by chance happens to contain an internal flowchart. 

 

Not sure where you went. My post was in reference to your comment about the Scientific Method. Now it is about ethics. Though it would be nice to have a scientific explanation of ethics, the fact is that science is designed to steer clear of the subject. So far, at least.

 

I might add a reference to a highly misused quote: "The exception proves the rule." The original context of this statement was in keeping with the Scientific Method, as, in this instance, the word "proves" is used to mean "test", not to mean proof. It is an antiquated use of the word, but very relevant at the time the quote was issued. This applies, I believe, to your second paragraph in the above quote. Science does not claim absolute truth. It is, rather, the best that we have at this time. If a theory explains most of what it claims, but is found to have a failing, we do not simply throw out the entire theory. We work to improve it.

 

This is where I see the use of scientific methodolgy as applies to certain human fields, philosophy in general, and ethics in particular, becomes a hindrance when taken too far. It might be useful, but has not fulfilled the function to a satisfactory degree.

 

The quest for a "scientifically" absolute ethical theory does not appear to have progressed very far.

 

So, if we can't, or won't, use the scientific method for resolving ethical questions, are there any relevant alternatives to simple reasoning?

 

I'm not asking for a reference to an idea that has failed the test of time, i.e., "Platonism". Nor one that has a miniscule population of adherents, and would be difficult, if at all possible, to generalize, i.e., "nihilism".

 

The immediate question, which I believe Stefan was trying to answer, is: Ethics: an objective or subjective field of study? Until this question is resolved our approach is limited, as each side can attack the other with relative impunity.

[RestoringGuy]

Not sure where you went. My post was in reference to your comment about the Scientific Method. Now it is about ethics. Though it would be nice to have a scientific explanation of ethics, the fact is that science is designed to steer clear of the subject. So far, at least.

 

I might add a reference to a highly misused quote: "The exception proves the rule." The original context of this statement was in keeping with the Scientific Method, as, in this instance, the word "proves" is used to mean "test", not to mean proof. It is an antiquated use of the word, but very relevant at the time the quote was issued. This applies, I believe, to your second paragraph in the above quote. Science does not claim absolute truth. It is, rather, the best that we have at this time. If a theory explains most of what it claims, but is found to have a failing, we do not simply throw out the entire theory. We work to improve it.

 

This is where I see the use of scientific methodolgy as applies to certain human fields, philosophy in general, and ethics in particular, becomes a hindrance when taken too far. It might be useful, but has not fulfilled the function to a satisfactory degree.

 

The quest for a "scientifically" absolute ethical theory does not appear to have progressed very far.

 

So, if we can't, or won't, use the scientific method for resolving ethical questions, are there any relevant alternatives to simple reasoning?

 

I'm not asking for a reference to an idea that has failed the test of time, i.e., "Platonism". Nor one that has a miniscule population of adherents, and would be difficult, if at all possible, to generalize, i.e., "nihilism".

 

The immediate question, which I believe Stefan was trying to answer, is: Ethics: an objective or subjective field of study? Until this question is resolved our approach is limited, as each side can attack the other with relative impunity.

Thank you for your insight.  It only makes sense to me to answer the question of "objective or subjective?" after answering the question of ethical origin "discovered or invented?".  The reason is that if ethics is invented, "objective or subjective" also seems to be an invented result.  I make this point in contrast to the scientific method, because choosing such a method is, as you suggest, the best.  But "better" is a determination made by choosing some metric, or yet another invention.  Perhaps even an ethical invention, telling you it is wrong to reject this better alternative.  I have no problem with inventions, but like the telescope, the ultimate goal of invention is to discover what is already there.  Observational inventions are calibrated by testing on already known objects.  Do we have naturally-occuring ethical objects?  It seems difficult to me to say UPB and ethics generally are inventions, yet without absolutes, there is not a single conclusion against which to calibrate them which does not originate from yet another human act of invention. 

The alternative I envision is partly a system of barter to fill in the subjective gaps, and partly a system of computer algorithms that shamelessly accept certain absolutes and search for contradictions.  I do not recommend Platonism in the ideal sense, but rather I want to use empiricism as its proof (in the sense you describe) instead of believing empiricism has somehow become proven.