Relative Morality

[Kevin Beal]

I should have looked it up first, I was being too literal: "Ethics is the subset of UPB which deals with inflicted behaviour, or the use of violence. Any theory that justifies or denies the use of violence is a moral theory, and is subject to the requirements of logical consistency and empirical evidence." page 48. So he seems to be equating violence and infliction here. I am tempted to just read it as violence, because of your example. But he says also "The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”" on page 125. So I see that as saying a question gets categorized as ethics if either the behavior being described involves violence, or if the proposed enforcement mechanism is violent. So violence => ethics. Can't be aesthetic or neutral.Anyhow, that doesn't dismiss my original question about professional ethics, which rarely has to do with physical violence. ( Am I being redundant, or should we talk about non-physical violence? ) Here's another example. Psychiatrists and Psychologists have ethical standards regarding sexual involvement with their patients, which entirely disregard the wishes of the patients. A therapist who marries a patient has violated professional ethics, even if everyone is happy with the result. Would Stef say they're incorrect to do this, or that they should do it but use a different word to describe it? My example isn't entirely fair, as I have assumed the best intentions and outcomes, and the ethical rules are intended to prevent therapists from taking advantage of the vulnerability of their patients. Should we consider it to be a form of violence for a therapist to seduce a vulnerable patient?Related question on UPB, maybe you can help. Stef said, "Murder is unwanted, therefore it cannot be universalized to all people." Can you unpack this for me? He never mentions unwantedness in the book, I am not getting the connection.The 2 guys in a room test has always made my head hurt, I have an interpretation at I think works okay, but it is a bit tortured.

So, it could be that I'm not using the words the way Stef is, but I use morality to describe both what is moral and immoral, but also aesthetics, and what is neutral. And these distinctions involve universality and logical consistency, then to what is enforceable.

 

There is nothing to universalize about me reading a book, when there is when someone is late to a meeting with me. The second case does not justify enforcement and so is not strictly immoral. Rather it violates aesthetic standards. Obviously it is a waste of my time, my most valuable resource.

 

As a society, in a family, among friends rules are established all the time about how people ought behave that are mostly within the realm of aesthetics. We have explicit or implicit contracts with each other.

 

Contracts are around aesthetics. It would not make a lot of sense to have a contract that forbade you from killing me. Instead there would be some standard that we come up with to handle the working relationship and in the case of the breaking of the contract.

 

By working for me as a therapist in my practice, I will require you not to have sex with any patients. If this contract were to apply to you because you are a therapist working with clients, and then not apply Jeff because he's a therapist working with clients. There is a problem concerning universality and logical consistency here, and so that contract would be a pretty bad contract.

 

Often we think of contracts as being good or bad using UPB like I demonstrated above.

 

 

 

Murder is unwanted by definition. If the guy wanted it, that would be like some strange suicide. Imagine two guys in a room wanting to murder the other, but not wanting to die themselves. Murder is good for me, but not for you is the break in universality.

[Waster]

So it means nothing to say that something is better, but it's better to believe that there is no objective morality? Is it your subjective preference that no objective morality is possible? If one ought not believe that objective morality is true and real because of some objective basis, meeting some sort of standard of reason and evidence, but the idea that one ought not murder, that's another matter entirely!

 

Morality is not a system. It's not a collection of rules. Even people who believe in theories of ethics which are barbaric and evil will tell you that they believe it because it meets some objective standard for how people ought behave, i.e. a standard beyond some system or collection of rules.

I never said that 'better' is meaningless. I only said it was subjective. I am also not saying that it is better to believe in no objective morality. The only thing i said was that you were wrong

 

Dont forget that anyone can claim to have universal morality. A system where everyone should kill himself is also a universal moral system. That doesnt make it objective. UPB is universal but not objective.

 

You asserted moral relativity as if it is a given then made a few statements based on that assertion. However, there is no such thing as "society" and morality would be meaningless if it were subjective.

All moral rules are assertions. That is exactly my point. And I reject those dogma's by saying that X is good, because that is all subjective and personal preference. Your assertion is UPB is a good moral system and we should obey that system.

[dsayers]

Dont forget that anyone can claim to have universal morality.

 

The purpose of philosophy is to (in)validate objective claims.

 

A system where everyone should kill himself is also a universal moral system.

 

Positive obligations are inherently immoral as they disregard consent, which violates self-ownership.

 

UPB is universal but not objective.

 

How can something that is universal NOT be objective?

 

All moral rules are assertions.

 

Not at all. You own yourself. People are not fundamentally different from one another. Therefor everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. That is the objective case for morality. Meanwhile, you continue to make assertions and just as with my last post, I challenge this conclusion of yours.

 

Your assertion is UPB is a good moral system and we should obey that system.

 

Actually, I haven't spoken of UPB at all except to say that I haven't yet tackled out it of misconception.

[TDB]

[...]Murder is good for me, but not for you is the break in universality.

My understanding of universality is that if a rule applies at all, it applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times. Are you using the same definition? How does this seem like a violation of that idea? Why not just apply the "no unchosen positive obligations" idea? The rule "everyone must murder" imposes an unchosen positive obligation on me.

[dsayers]

It breaks universality in that in order for murder to be murder and not euthanasia, it has to be unwanted by one of the parties. In order for murder to be universal, it would have to be wanted by everybody, everywhere, at all times but then it's no longer murder.

[Waster]

Positive obligations are inherently immoral as they disregard consent, which violates self-ownership.

Sorry, but this is question begging. You assume already an objective morality, to make an argument for it. You assume that self-ownership is objective moral axiom which i contest. If you are using the self-ownership principle you first have to show that it is a valid principle.

How can something that is universal NOT be objective?

I just gave you an example. The moral system where everyone should kill himself. 

Not at all. You own yourself. People are not fundamentally different from one another. Therefor everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. That is the objective case for morality. Meanwhile, you continue to make assertions and just as with my last post, I challenge this conclusion of yours.

Again. This only works if you are accepting the self-ownership principle, which i dont. Or at least i am skeptical. Which everybody should, because if it is invalid, then the whole moral theory falls down. 

Actually, I haven't spoken of UPB at all except to say that I haven't yet tackled out it of misconception.

Sorry for that. But it also applies to how you argue for the self-ownership principle. The assertion is here that the self-ownership is a good principle and that we should obey that principle and take it as our moral starting point.

It breaks universality in that in order for murder to be murder and not euthanasia, it has to be unwanted by one of the parties. In order for murder to be universal, it would have to be wanted by everybody, everywhere, at all times but then it's no longer murder.

What if we change words from murder to killing? This is a definition issue. Murder implies intention of the murderer. Killing doesnt. Then desire is irrelevant. Which means it can be a universal rule, without leading to contradictions.

[dsayers]

You assume that self-ownership is objective moral axiom which i contest. If you are using the self-ownership principle you first have to show that it is a valid principle.

 

Your contesting of it is proof that it cannot be contested. Unless somebody else used your fingers to type that. I'm assuming that the case for "subjective moral relativity" isn't forthcoming due to this inescapable axiom being rejected by you, eh?

[Waster]

Huh? Now the self-ownership principle is suddenly changed into a descriptive statement?

 

Moreover, the fact that i have self-ownership at this moment, doesnt mean that self-ownership is true at all places at all times. The fact that i am typing this only shows that the self-ownership principle is not universally false. Not that it is universally true.

[dsayers]

I asked you if your case for subjective moral relativity was not forthcoming for this reason. This marks the third request I've made of you to substantiate a position of yours that has gone unanswered.

 

Why do you speak as if the descriptive cannot be the same as the normative? Why do you speak as if the descriptive is a deal breaker for you when in the other thread, speaking in the normative was the deal breaker?

 

For as long as you are alive, you are nourishing nearly every cell of your body. On what basis could anybody else claim to own your body?

[Waster]

Why do you speak as if the descriptive cannot be the same as the normative?

As said this is the is-ought problem which is already accepted for 250+ years in the ethical field.

Why do you speak as if the descriptive is a deal breaker for you when in the other thread, speaking in the normative was the deal breaker?

Its not that the normative or descriptive is the deal breaker for me. I only say they cannot co-exist.

[dsayers]

Slavery was accepted for millenia.

 

I only say they cannot co-exist.

 

"You own yourself."

"I contest this."

"That proves it."

"That's descriptive."

"How is it not the normative?"

"I said so."

 

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as confrontational, but I cannot ignore that I'm trying to explore truth values while you're eluding every question being asked of you. If my understanding of the truth is wrong and you have a more accurate idea of what the truth is, this isn't a good way to convince people.

 

So my final question of you is the one I should've asked first: Are you interested in the truth?

[Waster]

Off course. That's the whole point why i reject objective morality. Because morality is subjective.

[june]

I am a moral relativist. So I agree with the OP. Morality is just a bunch of rules to shape the behaviour within a society. There is not really one society 'better' then the other. Better is subjective. Morality is a system. If we have two moral systems, moral system A and moral system B. Then both moral systems can say the other system is bad, wrong and evil. But objectively there is no one better then the other. You can only prefer one subjectively. You can try to create a new system to evaluate moral systems, however that system is a moral system itself and becomes moral system C that has exactly the same problem.

Thanks for your inputting your perspective into the discussion. What is interestng about your claim of moral relativism (that is, morals are not objective/universal) is that you that you cannot therefore statethat anybody is in the 'wrong' for their actions IF they do not follow your moral system. So if someones commits a murder, and they personally follow no moral system, then you cannot morally hold them accountable. This then begs the question, what is the point of relative morals? In fact 'morals' isnt even the right term anymore, i dont think, a more apt description is "personal preference".

Your contesting of it is proof that it cannot be contested. Unless somebody else used your fingers to type that. I'm assuming that the case for "subjective moral relativity" isn't forthcoming due to this inescapable axiom being rejected by you, eh?

this argument is confusing. So because someone argues against self-ownership, they are actually proving self-owership. Therefore self-ownership is determined via control. So to put it another way, i am controlling my computer right now, therefore i own this computer.... even though i dont, because im using my dads computer right now. Youre attempted proof of self-ownership is therefore severly lacking. Im very interested in pursuing your argument for selfownership. But first, could you clearly define what establishes selfownershop, and what then does selfownership grant

[Kevin Beal]

Dont forget that anyone can claim to have universal morality. A system where everyone should kill himself is also a universal moral system. That doesnt make it objective. UPB is universal but not objective.

And my point was that's exactly what you're doing: claiming universal objectivity regarding the way people ought behave. I showed how you were doing it with reference to your own quotations. You can't just say "nuh uh", haha.

 

My understanding of universality is that if a rule applies at all, it applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times. Are you using the same definition? How does this seem like a violation of that idea?Why not just apply the "no unchosen positive obligations" idea? The rule "everyone must murder" imposes an unchosen positive obligation on me.

If the rule "everyone should murder" applies at all, it should apply to everyone. Exactly. It's the exact same thing you are talking about.

 

And it also fails the unchosen positive obligations test as well. You're right.

[Waster]

Thanks for your inputting your perspective into the discussion. What is interestng about your claim of moral relativism (that is, morals are not objective/universal) is that you that you cannot therefore statethat anybody is in the 'wrong' for their actions IF they do not follow your moral system. So if someones commits a murder, and they personally follow no moral system, then you cannot morally hold them accountable. This then begs the question, what is the point of relative morals? In fact 'morals' isnt even the right term anymore, i dont think, a more apt description is "personal preference".

I am completely aware of that. Religion has another solution. Create a god that is the ultimate authority where morals come from. If you are not religious, then that is not a solution. However if people commit a murder, then they are still responsible for that murder. There is only not an objective standard to say if that was good or bad.Asking the question what is the point of moral relativism is the same as asking what is the point of life. I only try to accurately describe the world.There is a difference between personal preference and morality though. Preference is about what you like, what you want to choose. Morality is always about behaviour within societies.If a group of people have the same values, there is no moral problem. Problems only arise if people within the same group have different values. What I want for example is that we try to maximize freedoms within a society where everyone is equal. You can build a moral system with that statement at its base. Moral relativism is just a recognition that these moral axioms are optional and subjective. Most systems and religions have implicit axioms so they appear to be objective. Religion already needs to accept a deity, while UPB accepts that self-ownership is normative and descriptive at the same time. But in fact the self-ownership principle is a subjective moral axiom which i can reject if want to.

And my point was that's exactly what you're doing: claiming universal objectivity regarding the way people ought behave. I showed how you were doing it with reference to your own quotations. You can't just say "nuh uh", haha.

Please show me. What did i miss?

[june]

There is a difference between personal preference and morality though. Preference is about what you like, what you want to choose. Morality is always about behaviour within societies.

You know, this could just be a matter of semantics, but i shall state my case anyway. We have established that you cannot hold people morally responsible if they do not follow your moral system (if morals are considered to be relative). Therefore your moral system does not extend outwards in any objective sense, and you cannot claim "people should/shouldnt do this"; your morals can only apply to yourself, such as "i personally will not/choose not to do this".This is not a system concerning behaviour within societies, this is a system corcerning your own behaviour only. I.e., it is a personal preference.

[Kevin Beal]

Ought people to believe that morality is in fact not objective, and is actually subjective? Ought I show you what you're missing?

 

If no, why?

 

If yes to either, ought I do it because you have a preference that I do, or because of reasons that are true regardless of what you or I prefer?

 

The implication being that if you answer yes and because you simply prefer it, there are logical problems I can go into, but I'll wait for your response first.

[june]

Ought people to believe that morality is in fact not objective, and is actually subjective? Ought I show you what you're missing? If no, why?

The question is invalid, because relative morality claims that morals subjective, so the very term "ought" or "should" implies the very thing relativity opposes - objectivity, a ceiling, universality, a "right" answer.

[Waster]

You know, this could just be a matter of semantics, but i shall state my case anyway.We have established that you cannot hold people morally responsible if they do not follow your moral system (if morals are considered to be relative). Therefore your moral system does not extend outwards in any objective sense, and you cannot claim "people should/shouldnt do this"; your morals can only apply to yourself, such as "i personally will not/choose not to do this".This is not a system concerning behaviour within societies, this is a system corcerning your own behaviour only. I.e., it is a personal preference.

I am not proposing a moral system. Moral relativism is a statement about moral systems in general. That it is irrational to say that other societies are primitive, because they have other moral values. They think the same about us.   

Ought people to believe that morality is in fact not objective, and is actually subjective?

Only if they want to be right. Otherwise they can believe what they want.

Ought I show you what you're missing?

Only if you want to debate with me.

[june]

I am not proposing a moral system. Moral relativism is a statement about moral systems in general. That it is irrational to say that other societies are primitive, because they have other moral values. They think the same about us.

i didnt say you were "proposing" a moral system. But i was under the impression you have a moral system/code (whatever) that you follow yourself. Am i mistaken on this?

[Kevin Beal]

Only if they want to be right. Otherwise they can believe what they want.

"Only if they want to be moral" is the conclusion you reach through the exact same logic.

 

"Only if" implies a condition by which we see if something if preferred. Prefered in this sense is actually objective.

 

There is an equivocation when you say that something is prefered based on a condition, and that something is subjectively prefered in the way that I prefer chocolate to vanilla. Those aren't the same thing, if you catch my drift.

 

When you are arguing for subjective morality there is a prescriptive element implied in the act necessarily, a prefered state. You are saying that if you value truth, you ought believe that morality is subjective.

 

All UPB is saying is that if you want to be moral, you need to satisfy a few standards, like universality and logical consistency.

 

You are doing the same thing that UPB is saying you should, except with the important distinction that there is a logical inconsistency in what you are saying, a break in universality, where you are using a standard that you are rejecting (i.e. a performative contradiction).

 

"You ought not believe that anyone ought behave a certain way" is essentially what you are saying, which even if it met whatever criteria you are using for "subjective" it's still irrational.

 

The fact that people disagree about what is moral has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the propositions. People disagree about what is logical, so then is logic subjective? Of course not.

[dsayers]

Off course. That's the whole point why i reject objective morality. Because morality is subjective.

 

How do you know? I specifically asked you... well, lots of questions. The most recent was in regards to who could claim ownership over your body that you are cultivating even as you read this?

 

i am controlling my computer right now, therefore i own this computer.... even though i dont, because im using my dads computer right now. Youre attempted proof of self-ownership is therefore severly lacking.

 

A surgeon doesn't own you even though he's exercising ownership over your body. Your father owns the computer but allows you to use it. There is a difference between owning and exercising ownership over something. Yes, control is part of ownership.

[june]

A surgeon doesn't own you even though he's exercising ownership over your body.

and you dont own you even though youre excerising ownership over your body (as per your earlier "proof" of selfownership: "Your contesting of it is proof that it cannot be contested. Unless somebody else used your fingers to type that.)So again i ask, what are all (lets be thorough here) the factors that determine selfownership, and what then does having selfownership entail?

[Kevin Beal]

To those rejecting self ownership as a concept, please refer to the second listener bag question in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0JGAn7p81M

[dsayers]

and you dont own you even though youre excerising ownership over your body

 

Go on. Who then owns my body that gave me permission to use it since before I was old enough to communicate with anybody?

[TDB]

If the rule "everyone should murder" applies at all, it should apply to everyone. Exactly. It's the exact same thing you are talking about.

But my question was about the unwanted aspect, how that has anything to do with universality. I don't see the connection. Why does it matter what anyone wants, as long as the rule applies to everyone in the same way? 2 guys are in a room, both are supposed to murder, both want to live, one will succeed, the other will die, and being dead gives him an excuse. Or both will die. What's the problem from the standpoint of universality? Who is getting a pass?The question above is what I am really curious about, skip the rest of this post if you're pressed for time.There is another way to go at it, which illustrates my understanding of Stef's strong interpretation of universality. Think of a guy alone in a room, he can't just sit there, he needs to be murdering. If he is not murdering he is evil, because the rule applies at all times, even if there are no victims available. But this, if it really is a correct description of universality and not a straw man, seems sort of crazy. My first instinct is to interpret "murder is universally preferable behavior" as meaning "you can murder or not murder whenever you like." i think Stef rejects that possibility because that would mean that murder is neutral, not UPB. If violence is involved, it is UPB, the only question is whether it is required or proscribed. It took me a long time to figure out how anyone could get that. Here's my stab at an explanation: UPB ethics is about enforceable preferences. It is clearer to describe this situation as "it is a violation of UPB to not be murdering, and this rule will be enforced at all times."So if we accept this strong universality and Stef's definitions of the categories (UPB, APA, personal preferences, neutral), the rest seems to follow. The question that suggests itself at that point is, how do we convince a skeptic that Stef's definitions of strong universality and UPB are the correct ones?

And it also fails the unchosen positive obligations test as well. You're right.

You know, I was sure that was in the book somewhere, but I just did a search and could not find it (first "positive obligation" and then just "obligation"). Could it be he uses different words, or did he develop that idea after the book was published, or did we collectively hallucinate it? [edit] Found it: 'Any ethical theory that posits a positive action as universally preferable behaviour faces the challenge of “the coma test.” ' page 67.

[june]

Go on. Who then owns my body that gave me permission to use it since before I was old enough to communicate with anybody?

Wait, lets not sidestep the issue at hand here -- You attempted to prove selfownership through an example and i refuted that example. Do you agree that i just pointed out a contradiction your logic? If not, what is your defense against what i just said?

[Kevin Beal]

But my question was about the unwanted aspect, how that has anything to do with universality. I don't see the connection. Why does it matter what anyone wants, as long as the rule applies to everyone in the same way? 2 guys are in a room, both are supposed to murder, both want to live, one will succeed, the other will die, and being dead gives him an excuse. Or both will die. What's the problem from the standpoint of universality? Who is getting a pass?

If I say it's good for me to do something, but bad for you to do it, that moral proposition fails universality. Universality requires moral arguments to apply to all people. The unwanted aspect is simply a description of what murder is, not an additional standard. If both guys extended the right to kill them to the other guy, it's no longer murder, and instead some strange form of suicide. Suicide is not evil, but murder is.

 

 

 

There is another way to go at it, which illustrates my understanding of Stef's strong interpretation of universality. Think of a guy alone in a room, he can't just sit there, he needs to be murdering. If he is not murdering he is evil, because the rule applies at all times, even if there are no victims available. But this, if it really is a correct description of universality and not a straw man, seems sort of crazy. My first instinct is to interpret "murder is universally preferable behavior" as meaning "you can murder or not murder whenever you like." i think Stef rejects that possibility because that would mean that murder is neutral, not UPB. If violence is involved, it is UPB, the only question is whether it is required or proscribed. It took me a long time to figure out how anyone could get that. Here's my stab at an explanation: UPB ethics is about enforceable preferences. It is clearer to describe this situation as "it is a violation of UPB to not be murdering, and this rule will be enforced at all times."

This is basically a reiteration of the coma test. It's why you can't have a violation of a "thou shalt" that would be evil. The only sustainable moral arguments (where violent enforcement is justified) are "thou shalt not"s.

 

You cannot create a moral argument that logically justifies murder, rape, theft etc without a logic fail. So soldiers don't become moral, and taxation is just a euphemism for theft. The arguments you are referencing are used to explain why this is.

 

 

 

So if we accept this strong universality and Stef's definitions of the categories (UPB, APA, personal preferences, neutral), the rest seems to follow. The question that suggests itself at that point is, how do we convince a skeptic that Stef's definitions of strong universality and UPB are the correct ones?

 

By pointing out how their arguments actually suggest an acceptance of the theory in order for them to be made (Which is why I approached Waster's criticisms the way I did). Working through the logic of the book, how it confirms our intuitions about murder and rape etc, how it can evaluate moral propositions and how it's a consistent theory that even has predictive value (like any good theory should) is what convinced me (a previous skeptic).

 

 

 

You know, I was sure that was in the book somewhere, but I just did a search and could not find it (first "positive obligation" and then just "obligation"). Could it be he uses different words, or did he develop that idea after the book was published, or did we collectively hallucinate it?

I'm almost certain it's in there. Maybe it's in RTR? It's somewhere, haha. If not, then we both had the same hallucination, haha.

[dsayers]

Wait, lets not sidestep the issue at hand here -- You attempted to prove selfownership through an example and i refuted that example. Do you agree that i just pointed out a contradiction your logic? If not, what is your defense against what i just said?

I don't know. You stopped mid-thought and I'm asking you to finish your story so I can evaluate its truth value. As it stands, you're saying that "you don't own you" disproves self-ownership when it in fact only describes such a disproof, which doesn't prove it exists.

[june]

I don't know. You stopped mid-thought and I'm asking you to finish your story so I can evaluate its truth value. As it stands, you're saying that "you don't own you" disproves self-ownership when it in fact only describes such a disproof, which doesn't prove it exists.

There is no story. It was a direct rebuttal to what you just said. You are trying to prove selfownership by the means of control, yet have not stated how control translates into selfownership, nor what selfownership actually entails. Thats the issue ; and this will be the third time i have attempted to pry the answer from you -- the previous two failed. So, once again, what are all the factors involved which grant selfownership, and once attained, what does selfownership entail?

[Kevin Beal]

There is no story. It was a direct rebuttal to what you just said. You are trying to prove selfownership by the means of control, yet have not stated how control translates into selfownership, nor what selfownership actually entails. Thats the issue ; and this will be the third time i have attempted to pry the answer from you -- the previous two failed.So, once again, what are all the factors involved which grant selfownership, and once attained, what does selfownership entail?

This question you have is almost verbatim asked by the second mailbag asker in the video I linked. Did you watch it? If not, why not? If you did, how was that answer not satisfactory? (It start ~8min)

 

This is my thousandth post! Woohoo!

[dsayers]

This is my thousandth post! Woohoo!

 

/tar Kev

/pat

 

Crap! Now they know I used to play World of Warcraft!

 

@june: Where does self-ownership come from is a discussion ongoing right here in a thread that you have participated in. If you wish to come to a definition by asking on these boards, that would be a great place to start.

 

In the meantime, you've made the claim that I do not own my body, so I'm asking who does. Your claim did not imply uncertainty, so this question would be easy to answer WHILE trying to "pry from me" that which is elaborate and on display in a place I know you are familiar with. If you can tell me who owns my body and you are right, then it doesn't matter what self-ownership is or the fact that I accept it because it will have been superceded.

[TDB]

If I say it's good for me to do something, but bad for you to do it, that moral proposition fails universality. Universality requires moral arguments to apply to all people.

Yes, but what does "apply" mean? I have been reading it as "your actions are subject to the rule." I wasn't thinking that anyone's attitude toward the rules mattered, that people had to actually prefer the universal preferences. That seems like a stronger claim, harder to show. There are plenty of people with strange ideas, do they all have to consent? I need to think about this.

[...]I'm almost certain it's in there. Maybe it's in RTR? It's somewhere, haha. If not, then we both had the same hallucination, haha.

In the coma test section, "Any ethical theory that posits a positive action as universally preferable behaviour faces the challenge of “the coma test.”" He does not use the word obligation, so my search missed it.

[Kevin Beal]

Yes, but what does "apply" mean? I have been reading it as "your actions are subject to the rule." I wasn't thinking that anyone's attitude toward the rules mattered, that people had to actually prefer the universal preferences. That seems like a stronger claim, harder to show. There are plenty of people with strange ideas, do they all have to consent? I need to think about this.

"Apply" means that if a moral argument is true for one person, it's true for all people. If I were to be a snarky teacher with a "disobedient" student, I might say something like "this assignment is due tomorrow. Anyone who doesn't finish it will not be going to recess. This means you TDB!" That's what "apply" means.

 

Stef makes the distinction between "preferable" and "prefered". The first describes the proposition "if you want to have valid conclusions, it's preferable that you reject propositions that lead to contradiction". The second is about what kind of icecream I want. The first is objective evaluation of a proposition and the second is subjective experience of propositions.

[TDB]

"Apply" means that if a moral argument is true for one person, it's true for all people. If I were to be a snarky teacher with a "disobedient" student, I might say something like "this assignment is due tomorrow. Anyone who doesn't finish it will not be going to recess. This means you TDB!" That's what "apply" means.

 

[...]

But that seems to argue the other way. We are discussing universality and unwantedness. TDB definitely doesn't want to finish the assignment, it is unwanted, it violates his aesthetic preference. Yet the rules still applies.

 

Here is Stef's statement: "Murder is unwanted, therefore it cannot be universalized to all people." I am still baffled by what unwantedness has to do with it. What is the exception or asymmetry that violates universality? Who is getting a pass? You said "The unwanted aspect Is simply a description of what murder is." So are you saying Stef may have misspoken, like murder is murderous therefore it's not universal? Does Stef's statement make sense on its own for you? Maybe unwanted=violently inflicted=UPB not APA? But I still don't understand how universality is being violated.