The Moral Landscape Challenge

[PatrickC]

On the contrary those passages are precisely the passages I had in mind with my first use.

 

Am I taking a whiff of sarcasm here? I may have been insuffeciently clear how I meant it, but in which case you'd get further simply asking me what I meant.

 

You can by all means continue to make extrapolations with the same reason.. But don't be surprised if it doesn't make sense to me or any other mortal.. I just required some evidence, not presumptions taken out of context.

[Josh F]

One thing I was thinking about too, is too much of his moral theories are about comparing good to good and bad to bad.  In the context of a "greater good" the implication is that there is a "lesser" good.  It is almost like some point system, right?  Like if your action does 5 good points, but 3 bad points, then it is a net positive.  In objective moral theory, something that is wrong is just always wrong.  Murdering someone to save the lives of 10 people is still wrong.  You still murdered the guy and murder is wrong.  Making that choice is a different matter, and later justifying it to yourself, but the part where you murdered the guy is wrong in all ways and all times.

 

 

The central tenant of morality is that good is to be done and persued.

 

Why do you say that?

I'd be really happy with a world where there just wasnt evil, and maybe a little bit of good.  That would be cool, tons of amoral things happenings, lot of people hanging out doing fun stuff.  The focus on "good" reminds me a lot of religion, which is always trying to get you to do something.  I don't really know how to prove if something is good, just that it isn't evil.  Good seems more subjective.

[WorBlux]

Why do you say that?

I'd be really happy with a world where there just wasnt evil, and maybe a little bit of good.  That would be cool, tons of amoral things happenings, lot of people hanging out doing fun stuff.  The focus on "good" reminds me a lot of religion, which is always trying to get you to do something.  I don't really know how to prove if something is good, just that it isn't evil.  Good seems more subjective.

 

 

The full quote from Aquinas is that good is to be done and persued and evil avoided.  Generally these might be broad categories. Say coming to know and the overcoming of ignorance, or the participation withing a community.  Something that is basic and ingrained in what it means to be human, and such that it is a benefit to most anyone.

 

Another example often giving is marriage and the raising of children.  Here I take marriage to mean some formal structure of familial bonds.  There are countless variants that might achieve this goal, but it is still something that is central to the human experience.

 

I don't believe that there is particularly any one proof other than intuition, consideration, and reflection upon what it really means to be human.  And yes it's an open ended list that is not entirely clear, but part of the process is digging for yourself.

 

Now as far as justice goes, or those principle that are required to keep peace between man and man, we can be fairly certain what they and can be summed up as do no harm to another. Yet this is pretty easy to do and most people follow it to a substantial degree. what then after are the sorts of thing worth persueing and doing.

One thing I was thinking about too, is too much of his moral theories are about comparing good to good and bad to bad.  In the context of a "greater good" the implication is that there is a "lesser" good.  It is almost like some point system, right?  Like if your action does 5 good points, but 3 bad points, then it is a net positive.  In objective moral theory, something that is wrong is just always wrong.  Murdering someone to save the lives of 10 people is still wrong.  You still murdered the guy and murder is wrong.  Making that choice is a different matter, and later justifying it to yourself, but the part where you murdered the guy is wrong in all ways and all times.

Right that's a very convenient way to veiw the world as you can always know if an act was good or evil, but our experience of action is as means aimed at ends, rather than just a movement and result.   This sort of view of the question morality as an accounting of goods ignores the distinction between human action and the action of the sun and rain.

[WhoBobWhatPants]

 

You are ignoring that words like bad, good, and "well-being" are vague and subjective. Property rights are objective.

 

Let me ask you this: Do you accept self-ownership? I ask because "well-being" violates self-ownership. Your use of it after me making this point suggests clinging to a predetermination.

the fact that consciouss minds are capable of experiencing various forms of pleasure and suffering is objective

i'm also not sure how or why well-being violates self ownership

[dsayers]

You didn't answer my question.

 

Freedom also means freedom to make bad decisions so long as you're not initiating force against another person. "Well being" replaces the need for consent, which is immoral.

[square4]

 

The idea of well-being as the foundation of morality can be consistent with self-ownership in some sense. Moral rules do not have to be enforced. And well-being is promoted by refraining from all acts of aggression. But if you would define self-ownership as meaning that people may morally do whatever they want with their own body, then there is indeed a contradiction. But then property rights are also in contradiction. Property right rules restrict the freedom of how other people may use their body, and if enforced, that would be controlling the body of another without consent.

 

One aspect of well-being is not having pain. The pain experience is negative subjectively, but I would say, also objective in some sense. In my experience at least it is not possible to turn pain itself into something positive. To value it negatively then is not a subjective “opinion”, because there is no choice. We might be able to alleviate the suffering by focusing our attention on other things, but that does not eliminate the negativeness when it was there. Even if some people experience pain as positive, that does not diminish the reality of negative pain for all the others. The negativeness is really happening in reality.

[dsayers]

if you would define self-ownership as meaning that people may morally do whatever they want with their own body

 

Doing whatever they want with their own body isn't the definition of self-ownership. Using the definition that you put forth, one could choose to use their body to commit theft, assault, rape, or murder. These are in violation of self-ownership. I'm assuming this is the contradiction you spoke of because property rights do not inherently contradict themselves. In fact, any contradiction they create reveals that the person that created them are not describing the real world.

[square4]

 

Assault, rape, and murder violate the self-ownership of others, because it is doing what you want, not only with your own body, but also with the body of someone else, without their permission. But theft is using your own body to take an object that is not part of any other self. If someone touches your body, you can say, you touched me, but if someone touches your property, you cannot reasonably say, you touched me. The idea that property is part of yourself, sounds like a mystical claim to me. So self-ownership is ownership of your body. This means theft is not a violation of self-ownership, but only a violation of property rights. Absolute self-ownership, when taken to the extreme, would imply no property rights in anything besides our body.

[dsayers]

It is all the same thing. If you accept self-ownership, then you accept the self-ownership of others and property rights. If you own yourself, you own the effects of your actions. I'm currently typing to you on my keyboard. I paid for it with my money that I earned by investing my time and labor. If you steal it, you are enslaving me for as long as I worked to earn it.

 

The only difference between theft and assault, rape, and murder is that restitution is more realistic and easier to calculate.

[square4]

It is all the same thing. If you accept self-ownership, then you accept the self-ownership of others and property rights. If you own yourself, you own the effects of your actions. I'm currently typing to you on my keyboard. I paid for it with my money that I earned by investing my time and labor. If you steal it, you are enslaving me for as long as I worked to earn it.

 

 

To be clear, I am also against theft, and you deserve to keep what you have earned with your labor. My point is that if we reject moral rules based on well-being, because they are subjective and violates self-ownership, then when consistent, we would reject property rights as well.

 

Suppose someone chooses to manipulate an object in nature into a more preferable state, and subsequently claims exclusive ownership. In your view of subjective values, the preferred state would not be better in any objective sense. It is only a different state. Why would the simple act of manipulating an object into a different state have the result that no one else is morally allowed to manipulate that object again without permission? Because it would destroy the hard work? But the work of someone cannot be objectively assigned any value, if values are all subjective.

 

Owning the results of our actions could lead quickly to impossible situations when applied literally. Suppose someone walks on the beech in some seemingly random pattern, and creates footprints with his footsteps. Suppose he would claim ownership of these footprints, and forbid anyone to walk across it, because that would destroy his work of art. That would seem unreasonable, but why? The footprints are, after all, the results of his actions. Can we objectively distinguish between frivolous property right claims and valid claims?

 

To accomplish significant things in this world, we often have to invest, before we can reap the benefits. We travel a value curve, first downwards, during investment, and then upwards, after the task is accomplished, when we enjoy the results of our work. If our work is taken away half way, we suffer a net loss. If this happens frequently, investment is no longer profitable. In order to reach higher states of well-being, it is important for human beings that their property rights are respected. In this way, property rights are based on the importance of well-being.

[dsayers]

To be clear, I am also against theft, and you deserve to keep what you have earned with your labor. My point is that if we reject moral rules based on well-being, because they are subjective and violates self-ownership, then when consistent, we would reject property rights as well.

 

I have just made the case that property rights is what follows self-ownership. If my methodology was flawed, please point out where. This quote here is repeating what I have just refuted as if it was not addressed at all. I would ask that if you wish to continue the conversation, that you at least acknowledge that I've already addressed your claim.

 

I also noticed you went on to say "your subjective values." Self-ownership is neither mine nor subjective.

 

Footprints do not exist. Impressions made in the sand by somebody who doesn't own the land that it is on cannot claim to own the shapes left behind.

[square4]

I have just made the case that property rights is what follows self-ownership. If my methodology was flawed, please point out where. This quote here is repeating what I have just refuted as if it was not addressed at all. I would ask that if you wish to continue the conversation, that you at least acknowledge that I've already addressed your claim.

 

 

 

You have addressed my claim, but it was not convincing for me. I have explained why in my previous post, and will explain further in this post.

 

It is all the same thing. If you accept self-ownership, then you accept the self-ownership of others and property rights.

 

 

I understand this is stating your position. If it is intended as an argument, then please elaborate.

 

If you own yourself, you own the effects of your actions

 

 

- What is ownership of yourself? That other people should not do something with your body against your permission.

- What is owning the effects of your actions? That other people should not do something with the effects of your actions against your permission.

Being able to control the effects of your actions, at the moment you do those actions, indeed follows from self-ownership. But after the act, it is like owning history, and has no relation to property rights. Property rights is being able to control something after you have acted, which is something quite different, in other words:

- That other people should not manipulate an object after you have manipulated that object.

But this rule, when enforced, would be inconsistent with self-ownership as defined above.

 

money that I earned by investing my time and labor.

 

 

This argument was addressed in my previous post, when I said: “the work of someone cannot be objectively assigned any value, if values are all subjective”.

 

If you steal it, you are enslaving me for as long as I worked to earn it.

 

 

 

Although stealing is immoral, it is not the same as forcing another to do something against their wish, as happens during slavery. No one is forced to do something.

 

I also noticed you went on to say "your subjective values." Self-ownership is neither mine nor subjective.

 

 

What I said was “in your view of subjective values”. What I meant was: “according to your view that values are subjective”. Because we disagree about whether values are all subjective.

 

Footprints do not exist. Impressions made in the sand by somebody who doesn't own the land that it is on cannot claim to own the shapes left behind.

 

 

Making impressions in the sand, is that not like tilling the soil? Suppose the beech is yet unowned, does he get to own the land?

[dsayers]

I understand this is stating your position. If it is intended as an argument, then please elaborate.

 

I said, "If you accept." This is not stating a position. In order for you to accept self-ownership of you, but reject self-ownership of others, you would have to make the case that people are fundamentally different in way that denies them that which you allow for yourself.

 

Although stealing is immoral, it is not the same as forcing another to do something against their wish, as happens during slavery. No one is forced to do something.

 

Slavery is theft of free will. I invested my time in exchange for my keyboard or money that I chose to use to acquire my keyboard. If you steal my keyboard, you've stolen my free will during the time in which I exercised it to acquire the keyboard. We only know that the keyboard is mine because of this chain of events. To claim that theft does not violate self-ownership contradicts this.

 

Because we disagree about whether values are all subjective.

 

It's not up to us. The definition of value includes that it is relative to who is evaluating. That is to say that the objective truth of value is subjective. Is a sandwich worth $10? What about when you're really hungry and don't know when your next opportunity for food will come? What about when you've just had a filling meal? Value fluctuates even within the person doing the evaluating based on any number of circumstances.

 

Making impressions in the sand, is that not like tilling the soil? Suppose the beech is yet unowned, does he get to own the land?

 

It's not like tilling the soil. I don't know if he gets to own the land. I know the answer to that isn't relevant to a debate on whether or not theft violates self-ownership.

[square4]

In order for you to accept self-ownership of you, but reject self-ownership of others, you would have to make the case that people are fundamentally different in way that denies them that which you allow for yourself.

 

 

I totally agree. My issue was with the last part of the sentence, where you linked it to property rights. My arguments against it can be found in my previous post. I have not seen an attempt from you to directly refute that argumentation.

 

If you steal my keyboard, you've stolen my free will during the time in which I exercised it to acquire the keyboard.

 

 

This is simply not true. Your free-will is not stolen. Also, your reasoning does not explain why getting a reward for your previous actions is more important then the freedom of others who want to take your property. It is impossible to show that that reward for work is more important than freedom of action, when importance is all subjective. Let us consider again the man who walks on the beech. Walking might have been hard work for him. Does he earn the reward that his footprints will remain permanently under his control? Or is walking on the beech already sufficient reward in itself? Does it amount to slavery, if we destroy his work of art?

 

It's not up to us. The definition of value includes that it is relative to who is evaluating. That is to say that the objective truth of value is subjective. Is a sandwich worth $10? What about when you're really hungry and don't know when your next opportunity for food will come? What about when you've just had a filling meal? Value fluctuates even within the person doing the evaluating based on any number of circumstances.

 

 

It is easy to show that some values are subjective. It becomes problematic when you say that all values are purely subjective. Taken to it logical conclusion, it would mean that conformance to moral rules is not objectively valuable, and all moral rules invalid.

 

It's not like tilling the soil. I don't know if he gets to own the land. I know the answer to that isn't relevant to a debate on whether or not theft violates self-ownership.

 

 

If it is not like tilling the soil, in which objective aspect does it differ? Indeed this particular argument was not about self-ownership, but about subjectivity. The original topic was about well-being. You consider moral rules based on well-being invalid based on two reasons: 1) it is subjective, 2) it violates self-ownership. My arguments are intended to show that property rights 1) are similarly subjective, and 2) similarly violate self-ownership.

[dsayers]

 

My issue was with the last part of the sentence, where you linked it to property rights. My arguments against it can be found in my previous post. I have not seen an attempt from you to directly refute that argumentation.

 

Not at all. You spoke of "rejecting moral rules based on well-being" which nobody claimed and wasn't what was being talked about.

 

your reasoning does not explain why getting a reward for your previous actions is more important then the freedom of others who want to take your property

 

I don't even know what you're talking about here. Who said anything about a reward? Or freedom? Or relative weight? Maybe it would be more efficient if you made the case against property rights directly following self-ownership, which you claim to accept.

 

It is easy to show that some values are subjective. It becomes problematic when you say that all values are purely subjective. Taken to it logical conclusion, it would mean that conformance to moral rules is not objectively valuable, and all moral rules invalid.

 

Not only have you shifted from value to values, but you have made the claim that moral rules are invalid just because people can choose to ignore them. Does cotton candy suddenly NOT have less nutrients than wheat bread if somebody who could eat wheat bread eats cotton candy?

 

You consider moral rules based on well-being invalid

 

There's no such thing as moral rules based on well-being. Moral rules include do not steal, assault, rape, or murder. That they can contribute to the well-being of any actors involved is incidental. They are not observed because of any effect on well-being, but because they are consistent with the real world.

 

My original statement on "well-being" is in regards to the social convention of creating rules based on well-being. Bans on marijuana for example cite well-being, but violate self-ownership by dispensing with consent. We know it is not a moral rule because it is internally inconsistent.

[square4]

I don't even know what you're talking about here. Who said anything about a reward?

 

 

You used the word “earned” in your argumentation for property rights:

 

I paid for it with my money that I earned by investing my time and labor.

 

 

And earning implies getting a reward for something.

 

Or freedom? Or relative weight?

 

 

Because your argumentation makes logical jumps, I have to try to fill in the gaps and guess at the underlying assumptions. Property right rules imply a restriction on freedom, but they give people a chance to get a reward from their investment, so it is a trade-off.

 

you have made the claim that moral rules are invalid just because people can choose to ignore them.

 

 

I have not said such a thing.

 

Maybe it would be more efficient if you made the case against property rights directly following self-ownership, which you claim to accept.

 

 

I have done exactly that. In case you missed it, here it is again:

 

- What is ownership of yourself? That other people should not do something with your body against your permission.

- What is owning the effects of your actions? That other people should not do something with the effects of your actions against your permission.

Being able to control the effects of your actions, at the moment you do those actions, indeed follows from self-ownership. But after the act, it is like owning history, and has no relation to property rights. Property rights is being able to control something after you have acted, which is something quite different, in other words:

- That other people should not manipulate an object after you have manipulated that object.

But this rule, when enforced, would be inconsistent with self-ownership as defined above.

 

[dsayers]

And earning implies getting a reward for something.

 

No, it denotes a righteous ownership. If I agree to work for a guy at the rate of $10/hr, for every hour of work I perform for him, I earn $10. It's not a reward, it's the satisfaction of the conditional positive obligation he voluntarily created as a result of the condition being met.

 

Property right rules imply a restriction on freedom

 

The law of gravity imposes a restriction on freedom. That doesn't mean we can discard it as useless to us or deny it as factual. The fact that it restricts freedom evenly and consistently alters how we make decisions. Saying "restriction of freedom" disproves that property rights follows self-ownership is like saying that restriction of freedom invalidates that gravity is an effect of mass. "I want to keep the Earth, I just want to be able to fly also."

 

I noticed that your most recent post said nothing about well-being other than a quote that stated "as defined above" despite me making the clarification twice. I'm not even sure what's being argued about at this point, but for you to ignore these points while continuing a debate that was started because of what those points refers to, this seems deception in my opinion.

[square4]

No, it denotes a righteous ownership. If I agree to work for a guy at the rate of $10/hr, for every hour of work I perform for him, I earn $10. It's not a reward, it's the satisfaction of the conditional positive obligation he voluntarily created as a result of the condition being met.

 

 

If you get property from another person, for this property transfer to be valid, the ownership of the original owner must be valid. The validity of the whole chain of owners depends on the original property right claim. So the important question is, for what reason does the original owner gets to own the object that he took out of nature and modified to a more preferable state. Is it because he has earned this by his heavy labor?

 

It is useful to examine carefully property rights rules, and apply them with scrupulous objectivity to corner cases, where societal norms reject property claims on the results of your actions (such as when you make footprints in the sand). I have come to the conclusion that these cases show that property rights are partially based on well-being.

 

The law of gravity imposes a restriction on freedom. That doesn't mean we can discard it as useless to us or deny it as factual. The fact that it restricts freedom evenly and consistently alters how we make decisions. Saying "restriction of freedom" disproves that property rights follows self-ownership is like saying that restriction of freedom invalidates that gravity is an effect of mass. "I want to keep the Earth, I just want to be able to fly also."

 

 

 

If respecting property rights is a moral rule, then indeed that moral rule is unavoidable like the laws the gravity. This argument applies equally to all valid moral rules, also to those based on well-being.

 

I noticed that your most recent post said nothing about well-being other than a quote that stated "as defined above" despite me making the clarification twice. I'm not even sure what's being argued about at this point, but for you to ignore these points while continuing a debate that was started because of what those points refers to, this seems deception in my opinion.

 

 

I am disappointed that my efforts to address your arguments have appeared to you as deception. I am not sure which points you are referring to. If there is a point I need to address, please point it out specifically.

 

When I joined the discussion in this topic, you were asking someone if he affirmed self-ownership, as if that was very important in the discussion (“because "well-being" violates self-ownership”). You did not respond to my positive case for well-being based on the unavoidable negativeness of pain, but responded only to my controversial claim about property rights. This is a reason why we are on this side track.

[cab21]

If someone thinks it that persons well-being is better served by theft than free trade, that does not seem like a system that will provide for the wellbeing of someone who thinks his well being is better served by free trade than theft. If a person prefers to be stolen from, I think the case is not rational and not part of rational morals.

Ethics of free trade include that through consent and mutually benefiting trade, which would be for wellbeing of both.

Say a person wants to own footprints in the sand. The person could sell the land for something more preferable. If someone clings to footprints in the sand ahead of better offers for the person's wellbeing, at that point it's not really making rational decisions. If there is no one out there that could offer a mutual solution for trade of the original property, there wont be much survival going on, or the survival is through force and the people are less well off.

[kesler12]

This brings up an interesting side topic. Many in the LBGT community use the altar of moral relativism to defend their lifestyle. Of course they are not relativists in the strict sense (since they accept that some things are objectively wrong such as theft, rape, murder, etc), but only with regards to who they choose as partners. Is there any way that such a position can be legitimately criticised, or is it just plain unfalsifiable?

[dsayers]

This brings up an interesting side topic. Many in the LBGT community use the altar of moral relativism to defend their lifestyle. Of course they are not relativists in the strict sense (since they accept that some things are objectively wrong such as theft, rape, murder, etc), but only with regards to who they choose as partners. Is there any way that such a position can be legitimately criticised, or is it just plain unfalsifiable?

 

Why would a lifestyle that does not include the initiation of the use of force need defending?

 

Also, it was unclear as to what position you were referring to. My best guess is that your question is: "Can non-heterosexuality be morally criticized?" I'll wait for clarification before answering further.

[kesler12]

Why would a lifestyle that does not include the initiation of the use of force need defending?

 

Also, it was unclear as to what position you were referring to. My best guess is that your question is: "Can non-heterosexuality be morally criticized?" I'll wait for clarification before answering further.

 

The LBGT cause would need justification simply due to the fact that it is a radical departure from modern conventions. But by all accounts, it doesn't seem to offer any, so... Is it subject to moral criticism?

[june]

 

Owning the results of our actions could lead quickly to impossible situations when applied literally. Suppose someone walks on the beech in some seemingly random pattern, and creates footprints with his footsteps. Suppose he would claim ownership of these footprints, and forbid anyone to walk across it, because that would destroy his work of art. That would seem unreasonable, but why? The footprints are, after all, the results of his actions. Can we objectively distinguish between frivolous property right claims and valid claims?

 

this is an argument that "property rights" doesn't seem to account for, so bravo for pointing it out. it would be great to see if anyone can offer a rebuttal. a big problem here is distinguishing what actually qualifies as "labour"

[greekredemption]

this is an argument that "property rights" doesn't seem to account for, so bravo for pointing it out. it would be great to see if anyone can offer a rebuttal. a big problem here is distinguishing what actually qualifies as "labour"

 

Talking point:

 

The footprints in the sand example seems to highlight the speciousness of the 'owning the results of your actions' account of property rights. 

 

Perhaps the basis of property is merely arbitrary, particularly with regard to natural resources (best recognised in the Georgist point of view).

 

 

edit: an alternative argument is perhaps that property is merely an arbitrary expression of violence; that is to say that property can only be said to exist to the extent that the owner is willing to defend it. Perhaps, without violence, property would not exist at all.

[june]

 

The footprints in the sand example seems to highlight the speciousness of the 'owning the results of your actions' account of property rights. 

 

yes, this is what i was referring to by calling for a clarification of what actually qualifies as "labour".is walking in the sand "labour" and thus that sand can then be considered your "property"? if your answer is "no", then what is the distinction between the labour of walking in the sand and, say, working at an office job? is there a distinction at all?

 

 

 

 

[greekredemption]

Is motive relevant do you think?

[dsayers]

The LBGT cause would need justification simply due to the fact that it is a radical departure from modern conventions. But by all accounts, it doesn't seem to offer any, so... Is it subject to moral criticism?

 

Your premise is flawed. The definition of convention is: a rule, method, or practice established by usage. You're saying that anybody who deviates from what is most common needs to justify their actions. This is inflicting a positive obligation on other people. Unchosen positive obligations are immoral. If moral criticism is your interest, this is something you can address within your own life.

 

I already pointed out that not being heterosexual is not synonymous with initiating the use of force. Therefor it cannot fall under moral criticism.

 

Additionally, and admittedly less important, I'd like to expand on the "established by usage" part of the definition of convention. I confess that as a heterosexual who understands that non-heterosexuals aren't initiating the use of force, I don't spend too much time, effort, or attention on the subject. However, it is my understanding that the best science we have available to us suggests that the incidence of non-heterosexuality in the human species, which is perpetuated by heterosexual interaction, is the result of trauma in utero. This means that as near as we can tell, sexual preference is not a choice. Which means that the act of demanding justification is traumatizing somebody for having been traumatized.

 

I don't think morality is your motivation here.

[cab21]

The LBGT cause would need justification simply due to the fact that it is a radical departure from modern conventions. But by all accounts, it doesn't seem to offer any, so... Is it subject to moral criticism?

 

What cause are we talking about here?

modern conventions, or lack thereof,  is not a proper moral criticism

 

having a cause without justification is subject to moral criticism, considering morals are about justification. what causes are there without justification being given?

[labmath2]

Your next thesis that science is the only tool capable of discerning right from wrong is also incorrect.  Logic and reason, based on first principles, are more accurate methods of verifying truth statements than scientific, or empirical, studies.  1+1=2 by definition, you don't need to test this theory out in the real world.  Similarly, by definition, there are universally preferable behaviors.  Murder is wrong, not because you can scientifically calculate the consequences of murder, but because by definition murder is a behavior which can not be universally preferable.  That is to say, the minute you want to be "murdered" it is no longer murder, but assisted suicide.  By definition, murder is an act you don't prefer, and no one can ever prefer, and is thus immoral. 

 

Your next thesis that science is the only tool capable of discerning right from wrong is also incorrect.  Logic and reason, based on first principles, are more accurate methods of verifying truth statements than scientific, or empirical, studies.  1+1=2 by definition, you don't need to test this theory out in the real world.  Similarly, by definition, there are universally preferable behaviors.  Having a flashlight pointed in your face is wrong, not because you can scientifically calculate the consequences of Having a flashlight pointed in your face, but because by definition Having a flashlight pointed in your face is a behavior which can not be universally preferable.  That is to say, the minute you want "a flashlight pointed in your face" it is no longer Having a flashlight pointed in your face, but assisted screwing up of your vision.  By definition, Having a flashlight pointed in your face is an act you don't prefer, and no one can ever prefer, and is thus immoral.

[Josh F]

Replacing the word murder with pointing a flash light in your face is not very helpful, considering the definition of murder is unwanted, but the definition of a flashlight in your face is not. I don't find it to be a useful comparison, did you?

[TheRobin]

Replacing the word murder with pointing a flash light in your face is not very helpful, considering the definition of murder is unwanted, but the definition of a flashlight in your face is not. I don't find it to be a useful comparison, did you?

But can't you basically make up any word, by combining the action + unwanted and it would immediately become immoral by that reasoning? 

[labmath2]

 

The proposition before us is thus: can some preferences be objective, i.e. universal? 

When I say that some preferences may be objective, I do not mean that all people follow these 

preferences at all times. If I were to argue that breathing is an objective preference, I could be easily 

countered by the example of those who commit suicide by hanging themselves. If I were to argue that 

eating is an objective preference, my argument could be countered with examples of hunger strikes and 

anorexia. 

Thus when I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people should prefer, not what 

they always do prefer. To use a scientific analogy, to truly understand the universe, people should use the

scientific method – this does not mean that they always do so, since clearly billions of people consult 

ancient fairy tales rather than modern science for “answers.” There is no way to achieve truth about the 

universe without science, but people are perfectly free to redefine “truth” as “error,” and content 

themselves with mystical nonsense. - Excerpt from Universally Preferable Behaviour A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics

 

I have always operated under the assumption that Universally preferable behavior is a behavior that is preferred by all. After listening to the audio book i finally understand why i have had difficulty with the concept for so long since it would seem you needed to ask everyone if they preferred a behavior to put it in the UPB category. Now i understand that UPB is not about what people do prefer, but what people should prefer. My question is why should people prefer those behaviors and how do you know what people should prefer? When people make a should claim, they make it with the assumption that the person they are speaking to has an intended goal and they simply suggest the best way of achieving that goal. If i say you should eat good food and exercise, i assume you want to be healthy. To say the claim stands true even if you do not particularly care if you are healthy or not is false. I am posting this argument because i just found out what UPB means and a lot of people were using it as a falsification of Sam Harris' position.

[Josh F]

But can't you basically make up any word, by combining the action + unwanted and it would immediately become immoral by that reasoning? 

yeah thats kind of a good point

[Wesley]

FDR 440 - Sunday Call In Show (10/1/2006)

 

2:04:19 The Morality of Flashlights

 

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_440_Call_In_Oct_1_2006.mp3

 

Just in case anyone cares for Stef's opinion on the question from 8 years ago.

[labmath2]

So is that a yes or a no? People pointing lasers at airplanes is a problem today, so is that question more appropriate now?