Going UFC on UPB

[Playing With Plato]

So the title is just meant to be a joke, I know I'm a little new at this to be jumping in the ring with Tyson but I did have a couple nagging issues with the logic of UPB. They're probably just some issues with understanding terms but here are my questions

 

• Universality/Universal – That's a big word. Yet it's used to describe only a subset of the universe; human beings. And then it holds all human beings to the same standard. So it first explains the difference between something like a star blowing up and killing all the life forms in a galaxy as ethically different from a human being killing a bunch of people. I feel like this kind of means that we aren't talking about “Universal” principles because clearly we're excluding most of the Universe. I think the example Stef used was that a falling rock has no preferential behavior. So I have a gripe with the word Universal. Maybe uniformly preferential behavior would be better.

• Or really 1b. Since we are talking about the preferential behavior of a classified subset of the Universe why can't we further classify subsets of human beings; those that can do X and those that can't. If we accept that we can classify humans as having different behavioral standards as a star (which I fully accept), why then can we not classify between types of humans. (I know another guy posted about the possibility of excluding some humans from the definition of human, but that's not what I'm saying.) What I'm saying is that there are some people I'll trust with the keys to my house and others that I will not. Or lets say, its my friend's house and his baby is inside and lending the key to our mutual friend so he can feed the cat is still okay while tossing the key to any guy on the street becomes potentially dangerous for the baby. There are people who I won't lose sleep over knowing that they are in jail and others that I do sometimes. So I'm not clear on what it means to have “universally preferential behavior.” I would prefer to be able to trust everyone with my keys, but I can't and don't. I make distinctions about who I'm dealing with when in my interactions and adjust my behavior accordingly.

• Also, does universally preferential behavior mean that I prefer all others in the universe to behave a certain way or does it mean that there is some sort of giant conscience that prefers something of my behavior?

• Another issue is with the argument that if I don't believe in universally prefrential behavior, that I'm proving it. I think the argument is that I prefer there to be another code of ethics to apply to all human beings. So if I don't think one code of ethics can apply to all human beings, “that human beings can follow their own code of ethics” is a code I believe is preferable to all human beings. Is that right? But Stef, I really really really want you to be right. If I had believed it when you said it, I could be taking a nap right now, sleeping peacefully knowing that you'd solved all our ethical questions for the rest of time. I'd prefer that you be right, but I just don't believe it. God damnit, Stef!

• Also, I forgo doing things that I'd prefer to do all the time. Isn't that what morality is all about? Doing what is universally, or at least individually unpreferred? Like if I don't want to beat up a kid, there's no inner battle that I've won to stop me from beating up the kid. You wouldn't call me moral for breathing, so why is it ethical to not beat up a kid if it comes naturally to me like it does most people. But if this kid is being particularly annoying and I think it would feel just awesome to kick his butt, but I don't, then I'm showing some ethical strength. I'm doing what I didn't want to do.

[Agalloch]

1. Universal - as used in the book UPB - doesn't mean relating to the entire Universe, it means "Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universal). If that entire class is human beings, it is refering to the fact that you can't arbitarily provide different moral rules for one set of humans and a different set to another set of humans. However, the book UPB doesn't actually limit itself to human beings, but to all moral actors; which is the entire Universe in terms of morality.

 

2. The problem here is your misunderstanding with the word Universal. You can't determine moral rules about an arbitarily defined subset of humanity for the same reason UPB doesn't arbitarily select human beings for analysis, but restricts itself to the entire superset of all moral actors. Any other sentient beings that were to evolve or contact humans would be equally bound.

 

3. Neither. The first would be Universally Prefered Behaviour, a description of what people prefer, UPB is a methedology for analysis rules that would be Universally Preferable - that is, whether a rule can be prefered by all involved moral actors simultaneously, or whether the rule violates internal consistency by not being preferable to all actors at once. I.e. the rule "Rape is UPB" is invalid because the victim cannot find the action preferable. The second option you provide is obviously incorrect, I don't believe UPB once refered to any external conscience. The word Perferable refers to internal consistency, not to opinion.

 

4. You don't seem to actually respond to Stef's argument here. The reason arguing about Universal Preferable Behaviour is an acceptance of it, is that you accept that the Universally Preferable way to express your opinion about UPB and to try and change peoples minds regarding it is to discuss it with us, and in Language we could understand at that. You didn't come at us with a Knife demanding we stop believing UPB because you understand that will not change our opinion, and you are not talking gibberish because we could not understand you.

 

5. I think what you are getting here is the disapointment some people feel for the disconnect between Age of Heroes and the Reality of morality. The State and Religion have often used positive moral obligations to control people and influence their behaviour, making them believe that certain positive actions - like ratting out your neighbours in Nazi Germany - are moral. In reality, morality is much more dull, morality tends to be a lack of action, a lack of evil, not doing bad. Being the most moral you can be consists purely of inaction unfortunately, and there is no moral reward or Universal rule that you've fulfilled for what you do above and beyond that; though it may have much aesthetic preference and your peers may reward you.

[Wesley]

u·ni·ver·sal

ˌyo͞onəˈvərsəl/

adjective

adjective: universal

[*]
1.
of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.
"universal adult suffrage"
synonyms: general, ubiquitous, comprehensive, common, omnipresent, all-inclusive, all-embracing, across-the-board; More
global, worldwide, international, widespread;
formalcatholic
"the universal features of language"
• Logic

  denoting a proposition in which something is asserted of all of a class.
• Linguistics

  denoting or relating to a grammatical rule, set of rules, or other linguistic feature that is found in all languages.
• (of a tool or machine) adjustable to or appropriate for all requirements; not restricted to a single purpose or position.

noun

noun: universal; plural noun: universals

[*]
1.
a person or thing having universal effect, currency, or application, in particular.
• Logic

  a universal proposition.
• Philosophy

  a term or concept of general application.
• Philosophy

  a nature or essence signified by a general term.
• Linguistics

  a universal grammatical rule or linguistic feature.

[Playing With Plato]

Thanks for talking your time to help me out.

 

But, I still feel he's using being kind of arbitrary about at what level rules apply universally. A rule that said all redheads must be kicked in the balls, would apply universally to all redheads, right? So I can both classify and apply a rule universally, but I think Stef stops at "human." You can only apply something to one person if you apply it to all humans. Why? Why can't something apply to all brown-eyed people, people who are allergic to peanuts, or all things including stars and dust bunnies? Like, if all people want to not die, people who are allergic to peanuts have to follow an obvious different action than the rest of people. Their preferred action is to not eat peanuts, but that doesn't mean anything to me. Applies universally to people allergic to peanuts and not universally to all humans.

 

Then let's take it a step further and talk about people with different motives, because obviously not everybody wants the same thing in the world. If I want to be a politician, since crowds are moved by emotion more than logic, I really will be required to be full of shit. My preferred behavior is to be somewhat of a d-bag so that I can get what I want.

 

I kind of think this theory makes the mistake of assuming we all want the same things or that we all ought to want to be good. It's kind of like the central planning of morality, really. Idk, maybe I'm missing the whole thing. Anyway, thanks guys, I'm just trying to understand it.

[Wesley]

It is not arbitrary if you can come up with an objective, logical differentiation between two things. Red hair changes nothing about a human's moral reasoning. Being a rock does. Thus, it is not an arbitrary distinction.

 

The line is only "human" because other species do not understand and use morality like humans do. If another species does, they will join humanity in reasoning.

[Playing With Plato]

I get that human beings and rocks are different. What I'm saying is that people are different from each other and can't really be blanketed with this universal term. I don't trust someone who has stolen a bunch of cars in his lifetime with the keys to my car. I would trust my friends with them though. So I can't universalize "trust others with your keys" or "don't trust others with your keys. I can however universalize all situations in which I deal with someone who has stolen cars. Within this universe, don't trust. Obviously this isn't a moral example, but okay.

 

Adolph Hitler and Helen Keller are hanging off the side of a cliff. I help Helen Keller and walk away from Hitler. I'm going to let him die, because fuck him, even though in most instances it would be morally appalling to just let someone fall from a cliff if I could help them.

[Guest darkskyabove]

You can only apply something to one person if you apply it to all humans. Why? Why can't something apply to all brown-eyed people, people who are allergic to peanuts, or all things including stars and dust bunnies?

 

Then let's take it a step further and talk about people with different motives, because obviously not everybody wants the same thing in the world. If I want to be a politician, since crowds are moved by emotion more than logic, I really will be required to be full of shit. My preferred behavior is to be somewhat of a d-bag so that I can get what I want.

 

I kind of think this theory makes the mistake of assuming we all want the same things or that we all ought to want to be good.

 

#1: UPB only applies to moral propositions. It does not apply to "people who are allergic to peanuts" in any general way. I understand the title might give a false impression, but it's not an instruction manual about "behavior". Dipping my hand into a river to take a drink of water is not a "moral" behavior, it is a function of survival. I do not have a choice whether to drink, or not to drink. Morality requires choice: one can choose X, or one can choose something else. One cannot choose whether to be a redhead, or to be allergic to peanuts, therefore, there is no moral activity in these situations.

 

#2: Universal cannot apply to any one person, or any group. It must apply equally to all humans. Universal is not used in this context to apply to the entire universe, it only means humans, so far; as humans are the only potential moral agents that we know of. So your behavior to satisfy a certain scenario is NOT universal. What you are doing with your politician example is to equate your (hypothetical) personal desire with universally preferred. If it's only your desire, how can it be universal. Even though it may be expedient for the politician to lie, it does not show that lying is a proper method for all humans, at all times.

 

What I'm saying is that people are different from each other and can't really be blanketed with this universal term.

 

#3: Yes, people have different needs and desires. Again, that is about personal issues. UPB is not about what you want or need, it is about how you interact with other people. If you lived alone, on a deserted island, your wants and needs could have free rein in determining your behavior. As soon as another person is on the island, there are a whole new level of choices to be made. How should you interact with that other person?

 

Context matters. UPB defines the context where it should be applied. And within that context, it is strong. Out of context, there are an infinite number of ways to claim it doesn't apply. But UPB was never meant to apply out of its context. It's only about morality, not which way you should brush your teeth, or any other personal decision.

 

Hope this helps.

[Playing With Plato]

 

Context matters. UPB defines the context where it should be applied. And within that context, it is strong. Out of context, there are an infinite number of ways to claim it doesn't apply. But UPB was never meant to apply out of its context. It's only about morality, not which way you should brush your teeth, or any other personal decision.

 

Okay! That's what I was unclear on. Again, I really appreciate your time.

[TDB]

I've got a bunch of blog entries on UPB at brimpossible.blogspot.com/search/label/UPB, 2 on universality and how I think you can get Stef's version from Stef's assumptions.

Also, does universally preferential behavior mean that I prefer all others in the universe to behave a certain way or does it mean that there is some sort of giant conscience that prefers something of my behavior?

I think UPB answers some questions. Was X justified in doing Y? That is, has X broken some rule we are justified in enforcing?

Another issue is with the argument that if I don't believe in universally prefrential behavior, that I'm proving it.

By arguing at all, you accept any norms or premises required by the act of arguing. Stef discusses this in various places, but is not always clear and it is slippery to begin with. I have a blog entry about this at http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2014/01/self-detonating-counter-upb-arguments.html.

I forgo doing things that I'd prefer to do all the time. Isn't that what morality is all about? Doing what is universally, or at least individually unpreferred?

Stef used prefer etc. as a jargon term. If you go by his usage, UPB is always about a prohibition that can be enforced. It is not UPB to murder, steal, or rape, these things are prohibited, violations can be enforced somehow. Preference implies a full ranking, and by my interpretation of the ordinary meaning of the word, it would always determine a set of things you should (by some criteria) do, usually a unique action that is preferred, but possibly a set of actions preferred to others but among which you (or the universe?) are indifferent. Stef never talks about preferences this way.I've never understood why Stef uses the words (preference, prefer, preferable, preferential, etc.) in such an odd way. Clearly, the things he tests with the UPB tests, the moral propositions creat prohibitions: Don't murder, steal, etc.I've never gotten a good grip on whether I really understand UPB as Stef does, or maybe I have wandered off the reservation and he would completely disagree.

[labmath2]

There are distinctions that even stef allows in enforcing UPB, like the child exception, the mentally retarded exception, force exception(threat of force), and mentally unbalanced exception (bipolar, schizophrenic ...) and if i am not mistaken, punishment exception.

[Ancient Mariner]

• Universality/Universal – That's a big word. Yet it's used to describe only a subset of the universe; human beings. And then it holds all human beings to the same standard. So it first explains the difference between something like a star blowing up and killing all the life forms in a galaxy as ethically different from a human being killing a bunch of people. I feel like this kind of means that we aren't talking about “Universal” principles because clearly we're excluding most of the Universe. I think the example Stef used was that a falling rock has no preferential behavior. So I have a gripe with the word Universal. Maybe uniformly preferential behavior would be better.

 

Universality applies to all members of the same class. 

 

Now, it might seem that creating a "human class" is arbitrary but it is not. A class is made up of all the entities that share the same essence. In the case of UPB, all humans accept the foundations of UPB (implicitly or explicitly) when they engage in argumentation. A rock cannot engage in argumentation and thus it cannot be part of the class of entities that are bound by UPB.

 

Like in science, classes are not made up arbitrarily. For instance, in chemistry, if you discover that Gold reacts in a certain way under certain conditions to another element then you cannot arbitrarily do the following:

 

1. You cannot say that some Gold atoms are exceptions to your rule

2. You cannot say "oh well now this theory must apply to all chemical elements, not just Gold"

 

In other words, you cannot arbitrarily add or remove entities to your class. Let me know if this was helpful.

[TDB]

There are distinctions that even stef allows in enforcing UPB, like the child exception, the mentally retarded exception, force exception(threat of force), and mentally unbalanced exception (bipolar, schizophrenic ...) and if i am not mistaken, punishment exception.

I'm not sure what you are responding to. So why not an exception for man in a coma? Is the explanation of each exception the same?

all humans accept the foundations of UPB (implicitly or explicitly) when they engage in argumentation.

Maybe this was what labmath2 was getting at? Some humans cannot argue, yet we do not treat them as animals or rocks. How do we explain this using this distinction of engaging in argumentation? Such humans have a legal guardian who is held responsible for any UPB violation such a non-arguing human might accomplish. Does that help or make it more complicated? Am I missing something?

[labmath2]

I'm not sure what you are responding to. So why not an exception for man in a coma? Is the explanation of each exception the same?

 

 

It is often much easier to follow comments if you start the thread from the beginning. There are a couple of issues that the thread starter wanted to address and one of them was whether all humans were treated the same under UPB.

[Ancient Mariner]

Maybe this was what labmath2 was getting at? Some humans cannot argue, yet we do not treat them as animals or rocks. How do we explain this using this distinction of engaging in argumentation? Such humans have a legal guardian who is held responsible for any UPB violation such a non-arguing human might accomplish. Does that help or make it more complicated? Am I missing something?

 Concepts are imperfectly derived from reality and thus their application has some gray areas. Mathematics, which is derived from the behavior of the world around us, sometimes has funny edge cases. For instance: Division by Zero.  Since you cannot divide a number by zero, is division and mathematics invalid?  Let's say I ask you, can you go to the next room and divide this pizza pie (eight slices) equally among my four visitors. And, when you get there, you notice that they are all gone. Then, do you say "oh I cannot divide this therefore mathematics is incorrect"?  This is a quote from the book: 

A man with an IQ of 65 is mentally scarcely more than a little child – a man with an IQ of 100 is an average adult. If we say that a man with an IQ of 80 becomes responsible, then we are by definition saying that a man with an IQ of 79 is not responsible – is that a clear, fair, and utterly objective demarcation? Certainly not, but in order for most concepts to be practical, the criterion of “good enough” and a reasonable cost/benefit analysis must be put into place. As mentioned above, no water is perfectly pure, but waiting for perfect purity would simply cause a man to die of thirst. Given that the question of moral responsibility and intellectual capacity only applies to a very small percentage of people right on the border, and that creating objective and perfect tests is very likely to prove impossible, there will inevitably be some “rules of thumb” that win the day. We can only assume that, since biologists live with this kind of occasional subjectivism every day, moral philosophers can somehow survive as well.

 You can check the "THE GRAY AREAS" section on page 77 in the book for a full discussion.  I think it is important to differentiate the conceptual framework from the application of the framework.

[TDB]

It is often much easier to follow comments if you start the thread from the beginning. There are a couple of issues that the thread starter wanted to address and one of them was whether all humans were treated the same under UPB.

Thanks for the advice, but my problem is more profound. I did start the thread from the beginning, but I didn't get it. Thanks for clarifying.So why not an exception for man in a coma? Is the explanation of each exception the same?

[TDB]

 

Maybe this was what labmath2 was getting at? Some humans cannot argue, yet we do not treat them as animals or rocks. How do we explain this using this distinction of engaging in argumentation? Such humans have a legal guardian who is held responsible for any UPB violation such a non-arguing human might accomplish. Does that help or make it more complicated? Am I missing something?

Concepts are imperfectly derived from reality and thus their application has some gray areas.

I was not particularly satisfied by that section of the book. Let me offer an alternative. UPB applies in all cases. It does not specify what form rule enforcement must take, or punishment for violations, so guardianship sort of works. If a ward somehow manages to violate UPB, the guardian takes the punishment. When the child matures and opts in to the tribe of arguers, the guardianship must stop. The guardian voluntarily opts in to the responsibility. This helps Stef, since in deriving the coma test, he is assuming that a man in a coma would share any positive obligations others cannot escape. So the man in the coma must not be excluded from the group that UPB applies to. But the coma patient is very analogous to the infant, the Alzheimer's patient, the brain damage victim, all of whom get a pass. My twist claims that they actually do not get a pass, their guardians must bear the enforcement of any UPB violation they create.It helps with treatment of animals and rocks as well. Animals may opt in to the UPB group by starting to observe the norms and premises of argument. Since they do not object to our treatment of them, and they seem oblivious to UPB violations, they can be treated as property.

[Ancient Mariner]

Let me offer an alternative. UPB applies in all cases. It does not specify what form rule enforcement must take, or punishment for violations, so guardianship sort of works.

 Ok. I think I understand where you are coming from. There a couple of meanings to enforcing UPB: 1. The first use is a way to describe what ethics is 

ethics or morality will refer to enforceable preferences. (Page 48).

 

Ethics is the subset of UPB which deals with inflicted behaviour, or the use of violence. (Page 48).

In this sense, enforcement does not refer to how a court might handle cases where a child or low IQ person is involved. Enforcement, in this sense, refers to the fact that some behaviors are inflicted on others and those behaviors are part of ethics. 2. The application/implementation of UPB through a legal system If two people come to a court voluntarily and/or contractually to resolve a dispute, there is no initiation-of-violence involved.  The court might sentence a financial penalty to be paid from one party to the other but since the parties already agreed to obey by the court ruling then they are contractually bound to obey it. In this sense, enforcement is about the details of the legal system. Your idea of guardianship is interesting but we have to be clear that it doesn’t say anything about the conceptual UPB framework, instead it is about an implementation of a legal system. To put it in a simple sentence: Jurisprudence does not equal ethics.

[TDB]

To put it in a simple sentence: Jurisprudence does not equal ethics.

Your reply does not address my issue in a way I can see. I am trying to understand the treatment of infants, Alzheimer patients, and other "gray area" cases. If we just give them a pass, why not give one to the man in a coma? But Stef puts weight on the "man in a coma test" which depends on him not getting a pass automatically. Any positive obligation involuntarily placed on me, gets placed on everyone else, including the man in a coma, hence positive obligations are disallowed. But that means that UPB applies to the coma man in every sense. Because he is unable to move, it seems unlikely he will violate UPB, but this can't be said for children, Alzheimer's patients, etc.The quote from Stef above seems to recognize there is a problem drawing the line between adults and infants. But the problem is worse than that. Assume we could easily draw the line, we need an explanation (part of UPB) for the fact that there are two distinct groups of human beings. Or we say, okay, no problem, there are two groups by assumption and we throw away the man in a coma test.Or maybe Stef is being even more tricky, and the man in a coma test does not actually depend on what I think it does, but rather, the man in a coma is used as a standard, not a justification of the test. That is, the man in a coma gets a pass as a member of the infant group, but there are other reasons for objecting to positive obligations, and the man in a coma test is just a simple heuristic for letting us see whether a proposed moral proposition violates universality. If so, I failed to notice the other reasons, I thought it was literally "if there are involuntary positive obligations they obligate everyone including the man in a coma which is absurd."

[Ancient Mariner]

Your reply does not address my issue in a way I can see.

 Well, I addressed the questions you directed towards me. You have two consecutive post responses talking about guardians. In fact your entire previous post was about legal guardians. Can we at least acknowledge that the “guardians-question” is about the implementation of a legal system and not related to UPB framework? 

I am trying to understand the treatment of infants, Alzheimer patients, and other "gray area" cases. If we just give them a pass, why not give one to the man in a coma?

Now, regarding the content of your latest post, “the coma test” is just a way to reference the principle of “avoidability”. 

The principle of “avoidability” is central here – a man hanging off a flagpole has little choice about kicking in a window. A man breaking into your house to steal things clearly has the capacity to avoid invading your property – he is not cornered, but is rather the initiator of the aggression. (Page 55).

In fact, the man in a coma is not really special and has no special “weight”. A sleeping man does just fine: 

If I say that giving to charity is a moral absolute, then clearly not giving to charity would be immoral. However, a man in a coma is clearly unable to give to charity, and thus would, by my theory, be classified as immoral. Similarly, a man who is asleep, or has no money to give – or the man currently receiving charity – would all be immoral. (Page 67).

 In “gray areas” cases it is very difficult to objectively define a cutoff point at which every child “transforms” into an adult and it is equally difficult to know what exact IQ level excuses you from responsibility. The principle of avoidability is different from them in the sense that a man could very well have the capacity to know he is about to be unethical but he has no choice because of the circumstances. The coma test is just a quick and easy way to reference the fact rules that posit positive actions as UPB are not valid because it is not possible to comply with them all the time. If you don’t want to use a man in a coma, that’s fine: Use a sleeping man.

[TDB]

In fact, the man in a coma is not really special and has no special “weight”. A sleeping man does just fine:

 Okay, we give infants a pass, and coma patients, why not people taking a nap? I guess a sleepwalker would owe restitution if he did property damage.

In “gray areas” cases it is very difficult to objectively define a cutoff point at which every child “transforms” into an adult and it is equally difficult to know what exact IQ level excuses you from responsibility.

I am not worrying about the cutoff point, I am worrying that you have two classes of humans. Even if we could define the cutoff point precisely, this bothers me. We must be separating the issue of who qualifies as a moral agent, and how do moral agents treat human beings generally? That makes sense. Is there a clear derivation of this somewhere? Maybe we should just propose a moral proposition, and see if it passes the UPB tests. No, actually the ones we've got already will do, it's just I'd been thinking moral agents were only restricted with regard to each other, bad assumption. Murder includes murder of humans in the gray area, etc. But then how about animals? Why not include killing animals as murder?

  rules that posit positive actions as UPB are not valid because it is not possible to comply with them all the time. .

And that is because of universality, right? We can have voluntary positive obligations, and they don't disappear when we fall asleep, nor do we violate them by not actively fulfilling them at every instant. If I borrow money from you and promise to repay you Tuesday, I am obligated at all times, even while asleep, but I only must take one action and I don't need to take it until Tuesday.

[Ancient Mariner]

Okay, we give infants a pass, and coma patients, why not people taking a nap?

Let me put it this way: When you become an adult you are bound by UPB going forward. If at any point in time you are not capable of using your muscles, you do not stop being responsible (this is what we call Universality – everyone, all the time).If you broke someone’s window a week ago, you are still responsible even if you went into a comma yesterday. You are still responsible even while you were sleeping the day after you broke the window. You are still responsible even if you did it to save your life because you were hanging from a flag pole. 

And that is because of universality, right?

That is exactly right. The man in a coma or the sleeping man is still responsible and UPB bound. And this is precisely why they are good for “quick tests” of universality. 

Murder includes murder of humans in the gray area, etc.But then how about animals? Why not include killing animals as murder?

If you kill someone’s dog, burn someone’s house or kill someone’s children; you are doing evil. There is no difference here between any of them. From a UPB stand point you are still unethical. If you kill some random animal in the woods you are not doing evil. And you've got to admit that there are no low IQ people wandering in the woods living by themselves for years.A different matter is the implementation of a legal system. How a court will handle each of these cases is a jurisprudence issue, the ethical question is clear. 

I am worrying that you have two classes of humans. [...] We must be separating the issue of who qualifies as a moral agent, and how do moral agents treat human beings generally? [...] Is there a clear derivation of this somewhere?

I think we already covered who qualifies as a moral agent in my first post: 

In the case of UPB, all humans accept the foundations of UPB (implicitly or explicitly) when they engage in argumentation.

A child does not have the capacity for argumentation, but he is someone’s child. A low IQ person does not have the capacity for argumentation, but he is someone’s relative. In other words, while the conceptual UPB framework accepts that some humans are not UPB bound, in the real world, a legal system will handle those cases as best as possible. If anything, your concern should be with the implementation of a legal system, not with UPB.

[TDB]

It is one thing to say that it is hard in practice to draw the line between two categories, say child and adult. It is another to have several conceptually clear categories as part of a theory or concept, but to be unable to explain the significance of the distinction. UPB has moral agents, which includes some humans, and would include intelligent aliens if they exist. There are human non-moral agents, such as infants and some brain injury patients. And there are non-human non-moral agents, such as cows. But we would categorize alien infants as non-human non-moral agents. Presumably we would not treat them like animals. I'm not sure what UPB implies in this area.

A child does not have the capacity for argumentation, but he is someone’s child. A low IQ person does not have the capacity for argumentation, but he is someone’s relative.

<quibble>Their relatives may be dead.</quibble>I am still having trouble understanding the special status of the coma victim. Okay, any obligations he had voluntarily accepted before his injury are still in effect. But with respect to the future, his status is exactly like that of an infant, that is, at some point in the future he may (re)opt in to moral agency by recovering his consciousness. One has not yet developed the capacity to argue, the other has lost that capacity, perhaps permanently. So negative obligations apply only to those who can argue (or used to be able to argue), but positive obligations, if they existed, would apply to those who cannot argue? Yeah, maybe the coma test should be rechristened the napper test.Category|example|subject______|objectObject__|rock___|n/a__________|ownableAnimal__|dolphin|not moral agent|OwnableHuman__|baby__|not moral agent|not ownableHuman__|coma vic|?___________|not ownableHuman__|napper_|moral agent___|not ownableAlien___|baby___|not moral agent|not ownableSo, with regard to your actions, UPB applies if you are a moral agent, able to argue. With regard to how you are treated by moral agents, it depends on your species? Moral agents must treat other moral agents as not ownable, and also members of species that are potentially moral agents?

In other words, while the conceptual UPB framework accepts that some humans are not UPB bound, in the real world, a legal system will handle those cases as best as possible. If anything, your concern should be with the implementation of a legal system, not with UPB.

My primary concern is to understand UPB and how the concepts and categories derive from logic, argumentation, and whatever else. Anything that appears in the legal system needs a philosophical basis. I apologize for the legalistic language, but I wanted to talk about infants and coma victims and animals, how UPB deals with non-moral agents. In some cases they may be owned by a moral agent, in others they need a moral agent to take responsibility for them, as in a legal guardian. That is partly because I want to think about how UPB treats those who deny it, after the denial. I am interested in figuring out what implications UPB has for justification of rule enforcement, proportionality, punishment, etc. Okay, there are practical problems to overcome, such as distinguishing in practice between adults and minors, but there are also philosophical points.

[Pepin]

1. Universality/Universal – That's a big word. Yet it's used to describe only a subset of the universe; human beings. And then it holds all human beings to the same standard. So it first explains the difference between something like a star blowing up and killing all the life forms in a galaxy as ethically different from a human being killing a bunch of people. I feel like this kind of means that we aren't talking about “Universal” principles because clearly we're excluding most of the Universe. I think the example Stef used was that a falling rock has no preferential behavior. So I have a gripe with the word Universal. Maybe uniformly preferential behavior would be better.

 

The use of the word universal is applicable as it fits and is defined clearly. Almost all words are conceptually defined to describe the characteristics of part of reality as opposed to the whole. In particle physics, particular concepts only apply to subsets of the larger reality, like the difference in behavior and properties of bosons and gauge bosons. In regard to higher level concepts, such as biology, universalizations require different standards than that of physics.

 

As far as I can think of, the only two claims which are valid of all existents is: that existents exist; existents have energy.

 

To be honest, I am having a difficulty in understanding your argument. Ethics, theories of how humans ought or ought not to interact with humans, does not measure interactions between human and rock as rocks have no preference. It also does not measure interaction between human and alien as humans and aliens have yet to interact. 

 

The fact that a concept doesn't apply to all of reality is the point of a concept. The goal of any concept is to differentiate and to unify classes of existents through their similarities and differences, and to draw conclusions about a particular class through the properties of that class. If ethics is a theory which only relates to human interaction, and omits other interactions, then it is valid to ask the question of why? The answer not will attempt to appeal to a higher concept such as animal interaction, but instead focus on the properties that humans have that other existents do not, and use this as a rational basis for why there is a difference.

 

As an example, if we are measuring the ability to do calculus, it may be claimed that humans are the only species that have such ability due to their unique brain structure which is highly developed for rational thought. The answer would not appeal to a wider class, such as humans have the ability to do calculus due to have a brain, as this statement applies to the entire class of organisms that have brains and does not differentiate the primary factors which are essential to the ability to do calculus.

 

In relation to ethics, there are many arguments as to why ethics ought to only apply to human interactions, and these arguments are based on the primary differentiators between humans and all other existents.

 

1b. Since we are talking about the preferential behavior of a classified subset of the Universe why can't we further classify subsets of human beings; those that can do X and those that can't. If we accept that we can classify humans as having different behavioral standards as a star (which I fully accept), why then can we not classify between types of humans. (I know another guy posted about the possibility of excluding some humans from the definition of human, but that's not what I'm saying.) What I'm saying is that there are some people I'll trust with the keys to my house and others that I will not. Or lets say, its my friend's house and his baby is inside and lending the key to our mutual friend so he can feed the cat is still okay while tossing the key to any guy on the street becomes potentially dangerous for the baby. There are people who I won't lose sleep over knowing that they are in jail and others that I do sometimes. So I'm not clear on what it means to have “universally preferential behavior.” I would prefer to be able to trust everyone with my keys, but I can't and don't. I make distinctions about who I'm dealing with when in my interactions and adjust my behavior accordingly.

 

I am sorry to say this as you spent a good deal of thinking and time on this post, but this is completely unrelated to the theory of UPB. I am unable to respond to this because all I would be doing is disregarding everything you said, and providing an explanation of UPB.

 

It is a difficult theory to understand due to our conditioning. I had to listen to the audiobook about three times until really getting it. After that, I was very confused as to how I didn't understand it before. It may be annoying to say, but the theory is extremely simple and easy to understand, it just takes time. Again, I say this as a person who read the book three times.

 

To provide a bit of a response, different ethical classifications can be made within the class of humans if it is rationally justified. As an example, a doctor is subject to different ethical standards in regard to giving medical advice as opposed to a person. The differentiation being made is that a doctor is an authority figure on medicine due to their knowledge and experience, while the average person is not. A doctor giving bad medical advice is not the same as a person on the street giving bad medical advice.

 

These subdivisions cannot contradict UPB as UPB applies to all humans, and can be handled with contract theory. This is to say that when you see a doctor, you agree to accept their advice based on their credentials and that they intend to help and not harm, and if this is not lived up to they have broken the contract. In the case of medical advice from a random guy on the street and why it is different, there is no implied contract, and no reason to believe their statements are factual.

 

2. Also, does universally preferential behavior mean that I prefer all others in the universe to behave a certain way or does it mean that there is some sort of giant conscience that prefers something of my behavior?

 

Neither. It is a methodology for testing claims that intend to apply to all humans. It applies many basic logical tests, such as seeing if it is possible for all humans to do follow the "ought", as well as applying common sense tests such as the coma test which asks if a man in a coma would be immoral as a result of an ethical claim.

 

3. Another issue is with the argument that if I don't believe in universally prefrential behavior, that I'm proving it. I think the argument is that I prefer there to be another code of ethics to apply to all human beings. So if I don't think one code of ethics can apply to all human beings, “that human beings can follow their own code of ethics” is a code I believe is preferable to all human beings. Is that right? But Stef, I really really really want you to be right. If I had believed it when you said it, I could be taking a nap right now, sleeping peacefully knowing that you'd solved all our ethical questions for the rest of time. I'd prefer that you be right, but I just don't believe it. God damnit, Stef!

 

I am rather confused by this. I'd suggest looking into that argument a little more as you do not seem to understand it. I don't mean this as an insult, but it is somewhat clear in your wording that this is pretty muddled in your head.

 

4. Also, I forgo doing things that I'd prefer to do all the time. Isn't that what morality is all about? Doing what is universally, or at least individually unpreferred? Like if I don't want to beat up a kid, there's no inner battle that I've won to stop me from beating up the kid. You wouldn't call me moral for breathing, so why is it ethical to not beat up a kid if it comes naturally to me like it does most people. But if this kid is being particularly annoying and I think it would feel just awesome to kick his butt, but I don't, then I'm showing some ethical strength. I'm doing what I didn't want to do.

 

Oh, you're referring to Kant's theory of ethics. I doubt you've looked into it, but these sorts of claims do have a source, and you picked it up from various sources of media and social interactions. Personally I disagree with it on the basis that Kant argued that the theory would made masturbation immoral. The moment I am deemed immoral for what I do best is the moment I've lost all interest in being a good human being.

 

To respond to your argument, it wouldn't make much sense for ethics to judge thoughts, as that is very difficult. Perhaps a better response would be that thoughts have no affect on others, but actions do, therefore ethics ought not to measure thoughts but only physical interactions, but I am too busy trying to imagine a society where whether someone is ethical or not is based on their ability to demonstrate that they want to do bad things, but don't.

 

Also, I'm pretty certain in demonstrating that you are good, you will resist displaying your virtue, but will do so anyway because it is difficult to do. Though I am unsure if displaying your virtue would be moral or immoral according to Kant's theory... Hmm... I am rambling now.