What does UPB mean?

[labmath2]

After reading Stefan's book about UPB, i am so confused as to what it means, i have 3 working definitions.

 

1.UPB= Behavior that everybody prefers at all times and in all situations.

 

2.UPB= behavior that everybody should prefer at all times and in all situations.

 

3. A combination of 1 and 2 depending on the time and situation.

[cynicist]

None of those. UPB = objectively required, as in, "If you want to live, it is universally preferable not to hang yourself with a noose"

[labmath2]

None of those. UPB = objectively required, as in, "If you want to live, it is universally preferable not to hang yourself with a noose"

 

4. UPB = A series of conditional statements highlighting what is preferred provided you have certain goals in mind.

 

5. UPB = A series of conditional statements highlighting what should be preferred provided you have certain goals in mind.

[Pelafina]

I think UPB is Stefan's attempt to prove that the NAP is an ethical principle that everyone agrees with.  Am I correct?  

[labmath2]

I think UPB is Stefan's attempt to prove that the NAP is an ethical principle that everyone agrees with.  Am I correct?  

Yes. However, it is quite a difficult concept to grasp.

[SamuelS]

I think the key is the "able" in preferable -- it's things that are possible to universalize, it's possible for everybody to do the behavior at the same time without any logical absurdities or making somebody immoral for not doing the thing...examples:

 

it's not UPB to kill people --

 -- if everybody has to kill somebody, then anybody not killing somebody at any given moment is immoral, the people being killed are immoral, and it'd be logically absurd to think everybody could be killing somebody at all times.

 

it is UPB to breathe/eat/sleep/walk/talk, you don't even need to consider the "if you want to live" --

-- everybody can breathe at the same time, I don't need you to not breathe in order for me to breathe. I think these would fall into the "amoral" spectrum of subjective aesthetic preference, because some people might not want to live and thus wouldn't prefer to breathe, but that decision isn't forcing their choice on others.

 

there's an audio of the book on youtube, it's only about 5hrs long and while a bit complex it's a great read, IMO.

[labmath2]

I think the key is the "able" in preferable -- it's things that are possible to universalize, it's possible for everybody to do the behavior at the same time without any logical absurdities or making somebody immoral for not doing the thing...examples:

 

it's not UPB to kill people --

 -- if everybody has to kill somebody, then anybody not killing somebody at any given moment is immoral, the people being killed are immoral, and it'd be logically absurd to think everybody could be killing somebody at all times.

 

it is UPB to breathe/eat/sleep/walk/talk, you don't even need to consider the "if you want to live" --

-- everybody can breathe at the same time, I don't need you to not breathe in order for me to breathe. I think these would fall into the "amoral" spectrum of subjective aesthetic preference, because some people might not want to live and thus wouldn't prefer to breathe, but that decision isn't forcing their choice on others.

 

there's an audio of the book on youtube, it's only about 5hrs long and while a bit complex it's a great read, IMO.

 

6. UPB= it's possible for everybody to do the behavior at the same time without any logical absurdities or making somebody immoral for not doing the thing.

 

this is by far the most complex of the definitions. Contained in the definition is are two more terms that need to be explained namely, logical absurdities and immoral. Does this mean anything not universalizable is wrong relative to things that can be? What does the second statement "making somebody immoral for not doing the thing," mean? Does that mean someone can not be "immoral" for acting contrary to the defined action or does this mean not doing something does not count under UPB? Does this also mean it must be followed at all times and in all situations?

[SamuelS]

After reading Stefan's book about UPB, i am so confused as to what it means, i have 3 working definitions.

 

1.UPB= Behavior that everybody prefers at all times and in all situations.

 

2.UPB= behavior that everybody should prefer at all times and in all situations.

 

3. A combination of 1 and 2 depending on the time and situation.

 

back to the original question, if you want a one sentence definition, perhaps something like this:

 

UPB (Universally Preferable Behavior) is that behavior which could theoretically be preferred and engaged in by everybody simultaneously without infringing upon one another.

 

this does not mean the behavior is or has to be preferred by anybody, only that it is possible.

 

when you say "should", that seems like you're getting into the realm of ethics and remember UPB is not always about ethics, everybody can prefer blue pillows but that doesn't mean everybody should prefer blue pillows...in ethics I think you'd have things like violating self-ownership is not UPB and is also immoral because you're forcing your preferences on another.

 

I could be getting all this wrong, but that's my take on it

[cynicist]

4. UPB = A series of conditional statements highlighting what is preferred provided you have certain goals in mind.

 

5. UPB = A series of conditional statements highlighting what should be preferred provided you have certain goals in mind.

 

Definition 5 is correct. Number 4 is close but "what is" might be mistaken to mean that the preference is always acted upon. Someone might have a desire to learn the truth and choose to pray for divine inspiration even though they should be using the scientific method. 

 

Yes. However, it is quite a difficult concept to grasp.

 

Very. It took me quite a while to see what he was saying. I think I was trying to overcomplicate it the first few times hehe.

[Pepin]

UPB is a methodology that validates or invalidates theories that intend to apply to all humans through the measurement of the relation of preferences to behaviors through rational means.

 

That likely sounds a little too complex. Anyway, the theories that UPB deals with are theories that intend to apply to all humans. The universalization component is not so much a test, rather a requirement for an ethical theory. The application is to analyze a theory of behavior and its preference across the human race. If the behavior is not possible for anyone to perform, or for everyone to perform at the same time, or if the behavior requires contradictory preferences, then the theory is false as it fails to meet the criteria of being applicable to all humans.

 

The measurement of preference is needed because behaviors are morally neutral. The slitting on one's through is bad when done by a murderer, yet good when done by a surgeon. The difference in these situations is not the action, yet the preference. The man who is murdered does not want their throat cut, while the man who is about to die from choking does.

 

An example of an action that requires contradictory preferences is rape, as rape requires one person to prefer the sex, and the victim to not. If both prefer the sex, it is not rape. Because of this, rape cannot be universalized as it requires contradictory preferences.

[labmath2]

UPB is a methodology that validates or invalidates theories that intend to apply to all humans through the measurement of the relation of preferences to behaviors through rational means.

 

That likely sounds a little too complex. Anyway, the theories that UPB deals with are theories that intend to apply to all humans. The universalization component is not so much a test, rather a requirement for an ethical theory. The application is to analyze a theory of behavior and its preference across the human race. If the behavior is not possible for anyone to perform, or for everyone to perform at the same time, or if the behavior requires contradictory preferences, then the theory is false as it fails to meet the criteria of being applicable to all humans.

 

The measurement of preference is needed because behaviors are morally neutral. The slitting on one's through is bad when done by a murderer, yet good when done by a surgeon. The difference in these situations is not the action, yet the preference. The man who is murdered does not want their throat cut, while the man who is about to die from choking does.

 

An example of an action that requires contradictory preferences is rape, as rape requires one person to prefer the sex, and the victim to not. If both prefer the sex, it is not rape. Because of this, rape cannot be universalized as it requires contradictory preferences.

 

7. UPB= a methodology that validates or invalidates theories that intend to apply to all humans through the measurement of the relation of preferences to behaviors through rational means.

 

This is the most complex so far. can it be simplified. The only thing your explanation puts forward is the test of contradiction and preference.

 

I think the rape thing is an incorrect/misrepresenting idea. Let us assume the theory put forward is "Man should act in such a way as to maximize his own happiness." The contradiction test, suppose i prefer to have sex every night, consensual or otherwise, is there a contradiction? Rape certainly leads to less happiness for the victim, but the theory says nothing about my actions on other people's happiness. If she not being raped maximizes her happiness, the she should act in such a way as to prevent being raped. Assume i have a child, and what makes me happy is making her happy, that is also fine. However, the theory does not say people will be able to, or even act in such ways as to maximize their happiness.

[TDB]

Here's my latest stab at a summary of UPB:

When someone makes a moral claim,if their proposition doesn't apply to all moral agents, everywhere, for all time (universality), then that person is a hypocrite and you can ignore their bogus claim. You can also ignore it if it has logical contradictions or practical impossibilities. If the moral claim survives those tests, we are justified in enforcing it in some way (it is binding, valid, true).

 

I am not sure Stef would accept this interpretation.

[labmath2]

Here's my latest stab at a summary of UPB:

When someone makes a moral claim,if their proposition doesn't apply to all moral agents, everywhere, for all time (universality), then that person is a hypocrite and you can ignore their bogus claim. You can also ignore it if it has logical contradictions or practical impossibilities. If the moral claim survives those tests, we are justified in enforcing it in some way (it is binding, valid, true).

 

I am not sure Stef would accept this interpretation.

 

8. UPB= When someone makes a moral claim,if their proposition doesn't apply to all moral agents, everywhere, for all time (universality), then that person is a hypocrite and you can ignore their bogus claim. You can also ignore it if it has logical contradictions or practical impossibilities. If the moral claim survives those tests, we are justified in enforcing it in some way (it is binding, valid, true).

 

This is pretty good. You see it as the scientific method of evaluating moral claims which is kind of what Kant had in mind with the categorical imperative. I particularly like the part about practical impossibilities. 

[TDB]

I've made several blog entries about UPB. http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/search/label/UPB The older posts reveal a deep confusion. I've worked my way to the shallow end, I hope.

[TDB]

This is pretty good.

Thanks. I wish this thread had the UPB tag. I am not able to add it.

[AustinJames]

The term itself is a definition.   Universally-- concerning the functionality of an action, applied in all times, and in all places within the realm of human action; Preferable-- being a logically acceptable means of achieving the ends of human action;  Behaviour-- objectively measurable human action.  Therefore: Universally Preferable Behaviour = objectively measurable human action which can be applied in all times and places for the achievement of the ends of human action.

 

The definition is a tautology, but this does not make it redundant.

[Kevin Beal]

4. UPB = A series of conditional statements highlighting what is preferred provided you have certain goals in mind.

 

5. UPB = A series of conditional statements highlighting what should be preferred provided you have certain goals in mind.

These are things UPB evaluates. Not actual definitions of UPB. And the "goal in mind" is UPB, or to be moral.

 

The goal of exercising the scientific method is to have scientific conclusions (consistent with empirical reality and logical consistency). Saying that a proposition is UPB is saying that it's consistent with UPB.

 

UPB is a methodology for evaluating the logical consistency and universality of moral theories and propositions. It is a meta-ethical framework that looks at the propositions implicit in human action as well as explicit moral theories.

 

In the act of murdering a person, actual logical propositions can be deduced. If you try and murder someone, but resist being murdered in return (what murder means by definition) there is a proposition that looks something like "it's UPB for me to murder Bob, but anti-UPB for Bob to murder me" and this fails logically according to UPB's standard of universality, since if it's UPB, it's got to be UPB for Bob too.

 

Utilitarianism too fails because it allows for moral propositions which are anti-universal.

 

The "preferable" in UPB refers to this universality. It cannot be preferable logically for Bob and I to murder each other, since I have to not want to be murdered back in order for it to actually be a murder (denying Bob the right I grant myself).

 

Preferable refers to the satisfaction of the standard of universality rather than being a person's subjective preference for something like chocolate ice cream over vanilla. Which can be confusing since my example states that I don't want Bob to murder me back, as if it were a subjective preference, but the actual break in UPB is the denying a person the right you grant yourself bit. What goes on in people's subjective experience, their desires and beliefs are irrelevant to UPB. It's the propositions that matter.

[TDB]

Preferable-- being a logically acceptable means of achieving the ends of human action;

That definition sounds more like the definition of "sufficient."If it makes sense to you, help me understand why Stef used the word "preferable" at all. It implies a distinction between personal preferences and universal preferences. Should this make sense to me? To me, preference refers to a ranking, this is preferred to that, these two are indifferent. Maybe I am too stuck in econthink.UPB does not do much ranking, it makes one big distinction and is indifferent between the various things within each category. A particular theft is not preferred to a particular murder, and one non-violation is not preferred to any other.UPB rejects some moral propositions, accepts others, on the grounds of logical, practical, or argumentative impossibility. The moral propositions themselves refer to prohibitions. Why call it universally preferred behaviour? Wouldn't universally prohibited behaviour, or universally allowed behaviour, or universally evaluated behaviour, or even universalized behaviour, make more sense? Using the idea of preferability causes all sorts of confusion. Does the universe prefer? Does everyone prefer? etc.What am I missing?

[SamuelS]

Nobody has to prefer the action, it only needs to be possible to universalize the action. Again, I may totally be misinterpreting it, but UPB is self defining. Universally preferable behavior, in other words behavior that can be preferred universally -- rape, by its very definition is not preferred by one of the parties, thus cannot be universally preferable. Perhaps I'm looking at it too simplistically but I don't think so.

 

Regarding the proposition that man should act however he wants, that isn't even a testable proposal, only the distinct actions would be.

[TDB]

Nobody has to prefer the action, it only needs to be possible to universalize the action.

Exactly, so why does the word "preferable" ever come into it?

Again, I may totally be misinterpreting it, but UPB is self defining. Universally preferable behavior, in other words behavior that can be preferred universally -- rape, by its very definition is not preferred by one of the parties, thus cannot be universally preferable.

That sounds like consent, not preference. You're saying it is not voluntary, which would be clearer language.

Regarding the proposition that man should act however he wants, that isn't even a testable proposal, only the distinct actions would be.

Is this in response to something I wrote? I am not making a connection.

[Kevin Beal]

Exactly, so why does the word "preferable" ever come into it?

Not everything is true or false. Some things have different conditions of satisfaction. The condition of satisfaction for a desire is that the desire gets carried out. The condition of satisfaction for a belief is that the belief conforms to empirical reality.

 

"Murder is not UPB" is true in what sense? It's true in that it's conditions of satisfaction are satisfied if the proposition is universalizable. Preferable is just another way of saying the condition is satisfied.

 

In the same way it's true that my belief conforms to reality is the way that it's true that murder is not UPB. But there are conditions of satisfaction that are also involved.

 

If that makes sense.

[TDB]

"Murder is not UPB" is true in what sense? It's true in that it's conditions of satisfaction are satisfied if the proposition is universalizable.

Wouldn't it be clearer to say "murder is universally prohibited behaviour," or "murder is involuntary on the part of the victim," or "murder is not consensual?" Or even, "Murder is not universally glitzmorph behaviour," and then define glitzmorph? The word "preferable" does not fit here, Stef has jargonized it. I think it is unnecessarily confusing.

Preferable is just another way of saying the condition is satisfied.

So are you just defining the jargon, or do you think this definition applies generally? In what context would you use the word "preferable" to mean that, outside of a discussion of Stef's philosophy? Would you expect anyone to understand you, other than someone who has hung around this forum or Stef's youtube channel? Can you use it with this meaning in a sentence that is not about UPB?

[Kevin Beal]

Can you use it with this meaning in a sentence that is not about UPB?

If you want to go to Spain from the U.S. it's preferable to go by plane than by boat.

 

This is not some term Stef made up. The definition is "more desirable or suitable". In this case, it's the second one.

 

You are free to suggest alternate words to use, but the choice of words you provided don't describe what UPB actually is. Murder is not universally prohibited, nor is it necessarily about consent. It might be about glitzmorph, though. I don't know about that one.

[labmath2]

These are things UPB evaluates. Not actual definitions of UPB. And the "goal in mind" is UPB, or to be moral.

 

The goal of exercising the scientific method is to have scientific conclusions (consistent with empirical reality and logical consistency). Saying that a proposition is UPB is saying that it's consistent with UPB.

 

UPB is a methodology for evaluating the logical consistency and universality of moral theories and propositions. It is a meta-ethical framework that looks at the propositions implicit in human action as well as explicit moral theories.

 

In the act of murdering a person, actual logical propositions can be deduced. If you try and murder someone, but resist being murdered in return (what murder means by definition) there is a proposition that looks something like "it's UPB for me to murder Bob, but anti-UPB for Bob to murder me" and this fails logically according to UPB's standard of universality, since if it's UPB, it's got to be UPB for Bob too.

 

Utilitarianism too fails because it allows for moral propositions which are anti-universal.

 

The "preferable" in UPB refers to this universality. It cannot be preferable logically for Bob and I to murder each other, since I have to not want to be murdered back in order for it to actually be a murder (denying Bob the right I grant myself).

 

Preferable refers to the satisfaction of the standard of universality rather than being a person's subjective preference for something like chocolate ice cream over vanilla. Which can be confusing since my example states that I don't want Bob to murder me back, as if it were a subjective preference, but the actual break in UPB is the denying a person the right you grant yourself bit. What goes on in people's subjective experience, their desires and beliefs are irrelevant to UPB. It's the propositions that matter.

 

The problem here again is lack of clarity. 

I will define the two other words in UPB since you have been gracious enough to define preferable.

Universal-of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.

Behavior-the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others.

 

The first concern is the use of the word Universal, since it does not have to mean applicable to all people (even Stefan conceded that not everyone is treated the same under UPB), so who gets to define the "particular group"

 

The second concern as stated by TDB, preferable to whom? Everyone? We can certainly say If you want to go to Spain from the U.S. it's preferable to go by plane than by boat, but we could be wrong since we do not know the intention of the hypothetical traveler. If said traveler is transporting cars or does not care how long the journey takes, a ship can be better or just as good as a plane.

 

The third is of course that claim of beliefs have nothing to do with claims of behavior. Instead of stating there is no UPB, a rather clever person would rephrase as its is universally preferable belief that there is no universally preferable behavior, hence avoiding the inherent contradiction. Of course our hypothetical debater would be engaging in sophistry since he does not actually present evidence against UPB.

 

The passage that sticks out for me in UPB that exaplains UPB is this

"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."

If UPB is in fact what people should prefer, then it is itself a normative claim. The difficulty is in determining how one should prefer to behave without taking into account each person's individual aims.

[Kevin Beal]

The problem here again is lack of clarity. 

Wait. No. You made a categorical error demonstrating that you in fact do not understand what UPB is. Before correcting me, please acknowledge that.

 

I'm not sure it makes much sense for you to continue criticizing UPB given that. Rather I would suggest slowing down, maybe do some more reading, that sort of thing. Especially considering your equivocation between both senses of "preferable" at the end there. You clearly did not understand my definition.

[powder]

Here's my latest stab at a summary of UPB:

When someone makes a moral claim,if their proposition doesn't apply to all moral agents, everywhere, for all time (universality), then that person is a hypocrite and you can ignore their bogus claim. You can also ignore it if it has logical contradictions or practical impossibilities. If the moral claim survives those tests, we are justified in enforcing it in some way (it is binding, valid, true).

 

I am not sure Stef would accept this interpretation.

I really like this.  I don't know if it is a good representation of UPB.  I just read the book and I found it dizzing - I wasn't sure what the point of all the logical gymnastics was.  I was expecting, or hoping, it to be a simpler expose on how morality, or ethics, could be universal propositions to help people turn away from the insane edicts of church and state.  

Wait. No. You made a categorical error demonstrating that you in fact do not understand what UPB is. Before correcting me, please acknowledge that.

 

I'm not sure it makes much sense for you to continue criticizing UPB given that. Rather I would suggest slowing down, maybe do some more reading, that sort of thing. Especially considering your equivocation between both senses of "preferable" at the end there. You clearly did not understand my definition.

Kevin, do you agree with that definition?  

[Kevin Beal]

Kevin, do you agree with that definition?  

Do you mean the definition of preferable that isn't about people's subjective desires? The one more synonymous with "suitable" or "apt"? Yes.

 

Or do I agree with TDB's characterization of UPB? It's close enough, I think. I don't think UPB is about determining hypocrisy though. Rather, that rejection is the analytical rejection that Stef talks about. At first glance, they look very similar, but technically, a person who's a hypocrite can still be right. Like a smoker who warns kids not to smoke.

 

The same way that there is an implicit proposition in the act of murdering a person, and how praxeology is, like, a thing, is how the way that people act exposes certain logical propositions that can be evaluated. If a person demonstrates an incapacity to act / reason from their own stated position, they aren't even wrong.

 

So, it's not exactly hypocrisy that is the standard even if it is the result.

[powder]

Do you mean the definition of preferable that isn't about people's subjective desires? The one more synonymous with "suitable" or "apt"? Yes.

 

Or do I agree with TDB's characterization of UPB? It's close enough, I think. I don't think UPB is about determining hypocrisy though. Rather, that rejection is the analytical rejection that Stef talks about. At first glance, they look very similar, but technically, a person who's a hypocrite can still be right. Like a smoker who warns kids not to smoke.

 

The same way that there is an implicit proposition in the act of murdering a person, and how praxeology is, like, a thing, is how the way that people act exposes certain logical propositions that can be evaluated. If a person demonstrates an incapacity to act / reason from their own stated position, they aren't even wrong.

 

So, it's not exactly hypocrisy that is the standard even if it is the result.

Yes, TDB's one.  I am thinking that UPB is a method for evaluating the validity of moral/ethical propositions.  So replace hypocrite with something like 'valid' or 'rational' perhaps.  It just seems overly obtuse to me with all the stuff relating to preferences and such. 

 

I like Pepin's take on it above as well.  I am just saying I would prefer something simpler and clearer.  

 

I mean, if it is a rational methodology for replacing state and religious propaganda that has screwed our moral compass, then it would be nice if we could teach it, or at least explain it in a way that is easy to grasp for the average person.  The UPB book just gave me a headache.  

[cynicist]

I like Pepin's take on it above as well.  I am just saying I would prefer something simpler and clearer.  

 

I mean, if it is a rational methodology for replacing state and religious propaganda that has screwed our moral compass, then it would be nice if we could teach it, or at least explain it in a way that is easy to grasp for the average person.  The UPB book just gave me a headache.  

 

Yeah that's all it means. Hypocrisy is not relevant for UPB, it's the logic that matters. The problem is Stefan is choosing his words carefully in the book and constructing the arguments from the bottom up as a proof. If he tried to make it 'simpler' or 'cleaner' he would risk being incorrect and invalidating the book. Maybe there should be a companion guide to help people understand the idea more easily, I know there were a few areas that confounded me for a while. Doing that in a way that is useful but also correct would be a challenge. (might be better to just release a UPB v2)

 

I like Pepin's explanation too, except the where he said it's not a test and then mentioned the possibility of a theory being false. (that's the test part!!!!)

[TDB]

If you want to go to Spain from the U.S. it's preferable to go by plane than by boat.

Thanks, that makes sense, I wasn't making the connection. But there's still something different going on. Your example works well with my understanding of preferences, there are choices available, one is chosen as best given the desires of the chooser. In UPB, there's no single best choice, there's million of choices, some of which violate the moral propositions, some which do not.

This is not some term Stef made up. The definition is "more desirable or suitable". In this case, it's the second one.

I think it could be made much clearer. "Preferable" led me down a long rabbit hole.

You are free to suggest alternate words to use, but the choice of words you provided don't describe what UPB actually is.

So help me out. Is "preferable" really the only word you could use?

 

Murder is not universally prohibited, nor is it necessarily about consent. It might be about glitzmorph, though. I don't know about that one.

What do you mean, murder is not universally prohibited?

If I consent to you killing me, it is euthanasia, not murder. I believe Stef has made this distinction himself, though I forget the context.

 

The first concern is the use of the word Universal, since it does not have to mean applicable to all people (even Stefan conceded that not everyone is treated the same under UPB), so who gets to define the "particular group"[/size]

If by "concern" you mean Stef could make this much clearer, we are in agreement.

 

The second concern as stated by TDB, preferable to whom? Everyone?

My concern is that the word "preferred" hides and confuses the meaning, and that I hope we could find a better word to use there. Clearly Stef did not intend to mean that something was preferred by everyone or someone. I want to find words that express that meaning in a way I understand clearly.

The third is of course that claim of beliefs have nothing to do with claims of behavior. Instead of stating there is no UPB, a rather clever person would rephrase as its is universally preferable belief that there is no universally preferable behavior,

You completely lost me. The best I can do with this is paraphrase it as "No moral proposition will pass the UPB tests," which is not true. Probably you mean something else, but I don't know what.

If UPB is in fact what people should prefer, then it is itself a normative claim. The difficulty is in determining how one should prefer to behave without taking into account each person's individual aims.[/color]

In this case, "prefer" is again being used in a confusing way. UPB does not actually imply that anyone prefers anything in the sense that they would choose it from a set of unconstrained alternatives. That is a big part of why I think it is a bad choice for conveying this meaning.

In my understanding, the moral propositions divide behaviour into two sets, acceptable and not acceptable. The moral propositions are not part of UPB, it does not derive them, it just evaluates them. On the other hand, UPB does claim that the act of arguing presupposes certain norms and premises. Norms have normative content. So UPB is pretty clear on whether or not there are universal norms, or at least, it claims that if you try to argue against certain norms, you are contradicting yourself.

 

Or do I agree with TDB's characterization of UPB? It's close enough, I think. I don't think UPB is about determining hypocrisy though. Rather, that rejection is the analytical rejection that Stef talks about. At first glance, they look very similar, but technically, a person who's a hypocrite can still be right. Like a smoker who warns kids not to smoke.

You make a good point, but my effort was to summarize UPB in 3 sentences, obviously it will not be precise. To the ordinary person, hypocrisy and self-contradiction are pretty close. I think my "wrong" summary communicates the idea better than any "correction" I can think of. Help me out, if you can. How would you correct it?

 

 

I mean, if it is a rational methodology for replacing state and religious propaganda that has screwed our moral compass, then it would be nice if we could teach it, or at least explain it in a way that is easy to grasp for the average person.

Opportunity for us to use our brains. Let's fix it.

[TDB]

The problem is Stefan is choosing his words carefully in the book and constructing the arguments from the bottom up as a proof. If he tried to make it 'simpler' or 'cleaner' he would risk being incorrect and invalidating the book.

It is pretty standard rhetoric in nonfiction to summarize the argument, approach, and hint strongly at the conclusion in the first chapter. Simple and clean descriptions can be followed by details and explanations. This helps the reader figure out what is going on.

Maybe there should be a companion guide to help people understand the idea more easily, I know there were a few areas that confounded me for a while. Doing that in a way that is useful but also correct would be a challenge. (might be better to just release a UPB v2)

Companion guide or V2 sounds great to me. In the age of the internet, improvements improve things.

[Brentb]

The book on UPB isn't a guide to being moral - it's a secular proof of the morality that people universally already acknowledge to eliminate the apparent need for religion for morality.

 

If you want a guide or something simpler & more clear:

 

1) Don't steal

2) Don't rape

3) Don't kill

4) Don't commit fraud

5) Don't tolerate any of the above from others.

 

Admittedly, that's no more a guide than an ocean is a guide to land, but I think that morality is more of a barrier to destructive action than a guide to anything. Determine what you value, and let that be your guide as long as it doesn't lead you into the ocean.

[BenJ]

Can someone clarify the conditional statements that lead up to the the big 4? Murder, rape, theft and assault?  I understand that if the goal is to live, it is universally preferable behavior to eat food on a regular basis.  What is the goal or objective that precedes the actions we consider immoral to do, or moral to avoid?

[TDB]

Can someone clarify the conditional statements that lead up to the the big 4? Murder, rape, theft and assault?  I understand that if the goal is to live, it is universally preferable behavior to eat food on a regular basis.  What is the goal or objective that precedes the actions we consider immoral to do, or moral to avoid?

If I understand you, this is something that confuses me also. Stef discusses this "if you want X you must do Y" idea a lot in the book. Has he got an X that everyone does want? No, I don't think so. So, either the entire discussion of "if you want X" is beside the point, and UPB just tells you what is moral and not why you should stick with it; or else the X is "to be moral." What is moral, why be moral, two separate questions.But I could be entirely wrong, because he does not really answer this question as such. Or if he did, it snuck past me.

[cynicist]

It is pretty standard rhetoric in nonfiction to summarize the argument, approach, and hint strongly at the conclusion in the first chapter. Simple and clean descriptions can be followed by details and explanations. This helps the reader figure out what is going on.

 

He does that in the book... have you read page 7? What I'm referring to would be more like typical mistakes people might make while looking at the arguments for the first time, based on some incorrect assumptions or premises they might have prior to reading it.