What does UPB mean?

[AustinJames]

That definition sounds more like the definition of "sufficient."

 

 

It's not the definition of "sufficient," because sufficiency does not connote human action, and a preference is always a reference to the ends of human action.  The sufficient amount of chlorine needed to produce a chemical reaction is a scientific fact that exists independent of my preference for producing a chemical reaction.  A meteor can have mass sufficient to level a house, but it has no preference.  When we say "prefer," we are always referring to the ends of human action.  When we say, "sufficient," the word itself does not imply that we are talking about human action.

 

 

 

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.

 

The difference between personal preferences and universal preferences is purposefully implied.  Personal preferences are things that have no moral bearing in universal application, such as preferring chocolate ice cream to vanilla.  Preferences do refer to a ranking, and this is apparent in Stefan's proof.  'Not murder' is ranked as preferred to 'murder,' and 'chocolate ice cream' and 'vanilla ice cream' are morally indifferent.

 

 

 

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.

 

This is not so.  Though it is not explored explicitly within Stefan's proof, the more minute distinctions occur naturally with consistent application of the principles presented.  Theft and murder are both violations of UPB, but a world full of thieves is universally preferable to a world full of murderers.  A world full of people who are chronically late to work is universally preferable to a world of thieves.  Therefore, the hierarchy of grievance is determined by the consequences (both inevitable and possible) of any human action made universal.

 

Non-violations have a hierarchy based on the same principle.  According to UPB, it cannot be universally immoral for a doctor to not perform CPR, but a world full of doctors who do perform CPR is universally preferable to a world of doctors who do not perform CPR.  Therefore, there are actions that are more universally preferable and less universally preferable, independent of their moral content.

 

 

 

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?

 

It cannot be called "prohibited," because that implies a motive, and an end to the "prohibition;" it implies an outside "prohibitor" that may or may not exist.  The word "allow" does the same thing; it implies an "allow-er" that is independent of the "preferrer."  Universally "evaluated" behaviour does not connote human action, and therefore cannot imply a system that deals only in terms of human action.  "Universalized" behaviour has the same problem: universalized within what system?  It is unclear whether we are speaking of human action, or some other kind of behaviour.

[cynicist]

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.

 

In this sense, “preferable” does not mean “sort of better,” but rather “required.” If you want to live, it is 

universally preferable that you refrain from eating a handful of arsenic. If you wish to determine valid 

truths about reality, it is universally preferable that your theories be both internally consistent and 

empirically verifiable. “Universally preferable,” then, translates to “objectively required,” but we will 

retain the word “preferable” to differentiate between optional human absolutes and non-optional 

physical absolutes such as gravity. 

 

It can't really be more clearly described than it is in the book...

[TDB]

He does that in the book... have you read page 7?

Yes. The forward is a nice allegory. Then the introduction starts in on the "null zone", which is an interesting idea but not a summary of UPB, what it means and how he plans to derive it. Part 1 just starts grinding away at the details, no high level, no transition. He tosses the puzzle pieces in a box, leaves it up to the reader to put them together.

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.

That would be valuable also, a FAQ or Frequently Made Errors. I have a bit of that in my FAQ, under the criticisms section. http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2014/05/upb-faq-02.html

[DFPercush]

I guess I'll take a crack at this.

 

Universally preferable behavior is the set of all possible actions which may be achieved simultaneously by all moral actors.

 

... Except that would be universally possible behavior, so it needs some refining. I'm trying to make it as concise as possible. I think the whole reason that the root word "prefer" is in there, is to acknowledge that the scope of the work applies more broadly than a moral imperative like "Thou shalt not murder." Some actions are morally neutral, but they can still be evaluated based on their universality, and UPB still applies to that action. It's basically a way to include the notion of win-win interactions in the title. The big four are all win-lose scenarios.

[prolix]

25. UPB = A rational proof of secular ethics

[TDB]

It's not the definition of "sufficient," because sufficiency does not connote human action,

Why not? "It is sufficient for my purpose."

The sufficient amount of chlorine needed to produce a chemical reaction is a scientific fact that exists independent of my preference for producing a chemical reaction.  A meteor can have mass sufficient to level a house, but it has no preference.  When we say "prefer," we are always referring to the ends of human action.  When we say, "sufficient," the word itself does not imply that we are talking about human action.

You have switched to "prefer." We were discussing "preferable."

The difference between personal preferences and universal preferences is purposefully implied.  Personal preferences are things that have no moral bearing in universal application, such as preferring chocolate ice cream to vanilla.  Preferences do refer to a ranking, and this is apparent in Stefan's proof.  'Not murder' is ranked as preferred to 'murder,' and 'chocolate ice cream' and 'vanilla ice cream' are morally indifferent.

You are making my case for me. This is unnecessarily confusing, a digression. We can use the awkward description "'Not murder' is ranked as preferred to 'murder,'" or we could just say "don't murder" or "murder is prohibited" or "murder is not universalizable." UPB is, at this level, a categorization scheme with two categories, not a full ranking. Or a ranking with only two ranks, which again overcomplicates it. Using the word "preferable" is confusing. Kevin explained how this works at all, as in his example "if you want to travel from New York to Paris, it is preferable to fly." I think there must be a more intuitive, clear way to talk about this that is still correct, and leads directly to the actual idea of testing moral propositions for logical, practical, and argumentative feasibility.

This is not so.  Though it is not explored explicitly within Stefan's proof, the more minute distinctions occur naturally with consistent application of the principles presented.  Theft and murder are both violations of UPB, but a world full of thieves is universally preferable to a world full of murderers.  A world full of people who are chronically late to work is universally preferable to a world of thieves.  Therefore, the hierarchy of grievance is determined by the consequences (both inevitable and possible) of any human action made universal.

You lost me. If you are saying that we can divide the "allowed" category into "aesthetically positive," "neutral," and "aesthetically negative," That does not convince me that "preferable" is the right word. 

Non-violations have a hierarchy based on the same principle.

Stef did not discuss this, so either he disagrees or thinks it is not important enough to include in the book. I'm not sure whether what you're saying makes sense, but it does not matter. The essence of UPB is what passes/does not pass the UPB tests, isn't it? It's yes or no, not a ranking. 

It cannot be called "prohibited," because that implies a motive, and an end to the "prohibition;" it implies an outside "prohibitor" that may or may not exist.  The word "allow" does the same thing; it implies an "allow-er" that is independent of the "preferrer."  Universally "evaluated" behaviour does not connote human action, and therefore cannot imply a system that deals only in terms of human action.  "Universalized" behaviour has the same problem: universalized within what system?  It is unclear whether we are speaking of human action, or some other kind of behaviour.

The allower, prohibitor, evaluator, consists of the tests. So help me out. "Preferable" does not work. The idea we are trying to express is behaviour that conforms to moral propositions that pass the UPB tests. Help me find a word.  

 

In this sense, “preferable” does not mean “sort of better,” but rather “required.” If you want to live, it is universally preferable that you refrain from eating a handful of arsenic. If you wish to determine valid truths about reality, it is universally preferable that your theories be both internally consistent and empirically verifiable. “Universally preferable,” then, translates to “objectively required,” but we will retain the word “preferable” to differentiate between optional human absolutes and non-optional physical absolutes such as gravity.

It can't really be more clearly described than it is in the book...

 

You are a pessimist. I read that passage over and over during the past months, in frustration. Stef is clouding the issue by using biological metaphors. The "universal preference" for not eating poison is just a hypothetical imperative, cause and effect. "Objectively required" gives entirely the wrong idea, which is why he switches to "preferable".I think what he actually means is logical necessity, isn't it? "If you want truth, use logic and evidence." You can ignore the conclusion, but you can't refute it.Maybe he should have called it "Universal Metaethics?" "Metaethics of universality?"

[AustinJames]

Why not? "It is sufficient for my purpose."
 

 

Because, like I said, "sufficient" can be used to describe the dynamics of human action, but does not distinctly connote human action.  "Universally Sufficient Behavior" begs the question, "sufficient to achieve what ends?"  "Preferable" singularly refers to the ends of human action, whereas sufficient does not.  If you say, "sufficient for my purpose," we then need to define the "my" and "purpose" in order to derive from that statement any meaningful course of action. Furthermore, to say "sufficient for my purpose" implies a subjective viewpoint, where UPB requires an objective viewpoint.

 

 

You have switched to "prefer." We were discussing "preferable."

 

I believe this distinction is semantic, but I will rephrase: the amount of chlorine that is preferable is dependent upon the amount that is sufficient to achieve the ends of an intended action.

 

 

You are making my case for me. This is unnecessarily confusing, a digression. We can use the awkward description "'Not murder' is ranked as preferred to 'murder,'" or we could just say "don't murder" or "murder is prohibited" or "murder is not universalizable."

 

 

"Don't murder" is simply an authoritarian assertion.  Why should we not murder?  The answer is, "because murder is not universally preferable."  The advocation "don't murder" takes us further from understanding.  "Murder is prohibited," once again, connotes a party outside the realm of objective universality.  Prohibited by whom?  No distinct party prohibits murder, according to UPB; UPB simply states that murder cannot be preferred universally.  Two people in a room cannot both prefer to murder one another, and agree to act on that preference, because then you can't use the word "murder" for the violence that takes place; you would refer to it as a suicide pact.  "Murder is not universalizable" begs the question, 'within which system is murder not universalizable?'  If it is within the system of human action, the word "preferable" connotes this self-same idea, without the overhead of distinguishing human action to all other behaviour.  If it is within the realm of biological consequence, a lion would be held to the same standard in hunting a gazelle, and stalking prey would be considered immoral within the animal kingdom.

 

If you were to state it succinctly, what is your "case" that I am making for you?

 

 UPB is, at this level, a categorization scheme with two categories, not a full ranking. Or a ranking with only two ranks, which again overcomplicates it. Using the word "preferable" is confusing. Kevin explained how this works at all, as in his example "if you want to travel from New York to Paris, it is preferable to fly." I think there must be a more intuitive, clear way to talk about this that is still correct, and leads directly to the actual idea of testing moral propositions for logical, practical, and argumentative feasibility.

 

At what "level?" I clearly identified a "categorization scheme" with more than two categories (i.e. more or less preferable, and more or less universalizable based of the ends of human action [i.e. preferable]).  Even if what you say is true, and there are only two ranks, I do not see how this "overcomplicates" anything.  Rather, you should argue that this 'oversimplifies' everything.  How does UPB fail in "testing moral propositions for logical, practical, and argumentative feasability?"  The proof provides a basis for this practice, and you have in no way repudiated it.  Yes, it is a binary system; but like other binary systems, it can be extrapolated to communicate more complex ideas.

 

You lost me. If you are saying that we can divide the "allowed" category into "aesthetically positive," "neutral," and "aesthetically negative," That does not convince me that "preferable" is the right word.
 
Stef did not discuss this, so either he disagrees or thinks it is not important enough to include in the book. I'm not sure whether what you're saying makes sense, but it does not matter. The essence of UPB is what passes/does not pass the UPB tests, isn't it? It's yes or no, not a ranking.
 
The allower, prohibitor, evaluator, consists of the tests. So help me out. "Preferable" does not work. The idea we are trying to express is behaviour that conforms to moral propositions that pass the UPB tests. Help me find a word.

 

It's not my job to convince you that "preferable" is the right word.  The word is appropriate; you have not made a coherent argument to the contrary.  If you don't think it's appropriate, then suggest another; but the ones you have provided are not sufficient for the purpose of the proof.  Stefan, you say, either "disagrees or thinks it is not important..." but what is 'it?'  If you are referring to the binary nature of the system, I don't see how this undermines the efficiency of the application of the system.  Rather, it simplifies it, and universalizes it.  Much like a binary computing system can be employed to process vast amounts of complex data, so can UPB be applied to render complex evaluations of moral content from complex scenarios.

 

"The allower, prohibitor, evaluator, consists of the tests." -- What does that mean?  "The test" of UPB cannot render, of itself, any independent observer.  UPB is a system that the observer works within, or applies to achieve certain ends of morality.  To say that the "allower" consists of the "test" is a non sequitur.  It would be similar to say that "the scientist consists of the scientific method," or "the engineer consists of calculus."

 

You keep asserting that "preferable" does not work, but you have yet to explain why it is a deficient term. "The idea we are trying to express is behaviour that conforms to moral propositions that pass the UPB tests. Help me find a word." -- Well, I think you need three words-- Universally Preferable Behaviour.

[TDB]

"Universally Sufficient Behavior" begs the question, "sufficient to achieve what ends?""Preferable" singularly refers to the ends of human action, whereas sufficient does not. If you say, "sufficient for my purpose," we then need to define the "my" and "purpose" in order to derive from that statement any meaningful course of action. Furthermore, to say "sufficient for my purpose" implies a subjective viewpoint, where UPB requires an objective viewpoint.

Just as "Universally Preferable Behaviour" diverts many to the question, "preferable to whom in pursuit of what goal?"Preferable implies a ranking, the system Stef devised actually creates a binary categorization.Fine, toss out "sufficient." Please help me find a better word, one that means "measuable by an objective standard."

"Don't murder" is simply an authoritarian assertion. Why should we not murder? The answer is, "because murder is not universally preferable."

Well, no, that is my original point, that "universally preferable" communicates poorly, that it is jargon. "Don't murder" actually is understandable to the uninitiated, "murder is not universally preferable" is just confusing.UPB divides the set of moral propositions into those that are universal and those that are not. And those propositions divide the set of actions into those that violate the propositions and those that do not. There is no ranking, no preferring happening, no preferableness. Everything has been mapped out, surveyed, evaluated with regard to sufficiency.If you want to x, it is preferable that you conform to the moral propositions that pass the UPB tests. What is X?

The advocation "don't murder" takes us further from understanding. "Murder is prohibited," once again, connotes a party outside the realm of objective universality. Prohibited by whom?No distinct party prohibits murder, according to UPB;

Prohibited by the moral propositions that pass the UPB tests. Who gave us those?If there can be a preference without a preferer, why not a prohibition without a prohibitor?

. "Murder is not universalizable" begs the question, 'within which system is murder not universalizable?'

How does that objection not apply equally to "preferable?"

If you were to state it succinctly, what is your "case" that I am making for you?

If you included the context, I might remember more clearly. If I recall, you made some convoluted jargon statement that could be decoded with difficulty into something clear and concise, understandable by a person who has not spent months studying.

.At what "level?" I clearly identified a "categorization scheme" with more than two categories

The moral propositions are all of the form, "don't do X." Subcategories within the category of not doing X gets treated as practically irrelevant in the UPB book. Maybe I am distorting it, but I think UPB is all about drawing that line between what moral propositions are universal and aren't, what the universal moral propositions allow and what they prohibit, and justifying that. That is the essense of UPB, in my opinion. I think we could remove every use of the word "prefer" and every use of a word with that root from the book, replace it with other words, and the book would be improved, easier to understand. 

.[if] there are only two ranks, I do not see how this "overcomplicates" anything. Rather, you should argue that this 'oversimplifies' everything. How does UPB fail in "testing moral propositions for logical, practical, and argumentative feasability?" The proof provides a basis for this practice, and you have in no way repudiated it. Yes, it is a binary system; but like other binary systems, it can be extrapolated to communicate more complex ideas.

Sorry, apparently I have not been clear. In this discussion, I have not been arguing against any of the content of UPB. I have been trying to replace the jargonistic use of the word "preferable" with some word or phrase that clearly describes or better hints at what the UPB system actually does/is. 

.Stefan, you say, either "disagrees or thinks it is not important..." but what is 'it?' 

Non-violations have a hierarchy based on the same principle.

 

I think Stef is much less concerned about categorizing non-violations than he is about finding the line between what is a violation and is not.

."The allower, prohibitor, evaluator, consists of the tests." -- What does that mean? "The test" of UPB cannot render, of itself, any independent observer. UPB is a system that the observer works within, or applies to achieve certain ends of morality. To say that the "allower" consists of the "test" is a non sequitur. It would be similar to say that "the scientist consists of the scientific method," or "the engineer consists of calculus."You keep asserting that "preferable" does not work, but you have yet to explain why it is a deficient term. "The idea we are trying to express is behaviour that conforms to moral propositions that pass the UPB tests. Help me find a word." -- Well, I think you need three words-- Universally Preferable Behaviour.

Can there be two correct mathematics? Should the identity of the grader change the grade on the math paper? If the standard is objective, the identity of the person applying the standard is irrelevant, or it fails.It's not easy to explain why I don't understand something, why it confuses me, why it continues to make my brain stumble even now that I understand it as a pure jargon term.I have no problem with "universally" and "Behaviour." Maybe I should just suggest Molyneux's meta-ethics.

[AustinJames]

Just as "Universally Preferable Behaviour" diverts many to the question, "preferable to whom in pursuit of what goal?"

No, it does not.  The implication of the word "universally" combined with the word "preferable" and "behaviour" is that the "goal" is the ends of all human action.  It follows that the "whom," therefore, is the whole of humanity. 

 

 

Preferable implies a ranking, the system Stef devised actually creates a binary categorization.

 

Preference can always be reduced to a binary categorization.  If one prefers [1] to [0], the word 'prefer' implies that the individual would like, want, or tolerate [1] over [0].  If you can think of a preference that cannot be reduced to a binary categorization, I would love to hear it.

 

 

 

Fine, toss out "sufficient." Please help me find a better word, one that means "measuable by an objective standard."

 

If something is universally preferable, it is, therefore, objectively measurable.  The only way one could deduce whether something is universally preferable would be to measure the preference according to an objective standard.

 

 

 

Well, no, that is my original point, that "universally preferable" communicates poorly, that it is jargon. "Don't murder" actually is understandable to the uninitiated, "murder is not universally preferable" is just confusing.

 

You are saying that Stefan (as you refer to his proof) communicates poorly.  If that is true, I don't know what to call what you are doing.  "Don't murder" is a conclusion, not a methodology.  UPB is not a list of conclusions, it is a methodology.

 

Whether something is easily understandable is not a measure of its truth value.  Calculus is confusing to the "uninitiated," but this does not devalue its proofs.

 

 

 

UPB divides the set of moral propositions into those that are universal and those that are not. And those propositions divide the set of actions into those that violate the propositions and those that do not. There is no ranking, no preferring happening, no preferableness. Everything has been mapped out, surveyed, evaluated with regard to sufficiency.If you want to x, it is preferable that you conform to the moral propositions that pass the UPB tests. What is X?

If an action does not violate universal moral propositions, it is objectively preferable to those actions that do violate universal moral propositions.  Therefore, there is preference.

 

 x= be virtuous (accepting that virtue leads to happiness).  If you do not accept that virtue leads to happiness, then x= pursue the perceived benefits of human action (health, happiness, well-being).

 

 

 

Prohibited by the moral propositions that pass the UPB tests. Who gave us those?

 

Nobody "gave us" non-aggression.  Nobody "gave us" property.  The answer is, simply, no one.

 

 

 

If there can be a preference without a preferer, why not a prohibition without a prohibitor?

 

There cannot be a preference without a preferrer, any more than there can be an act without an actor.

 

 

 

How does that objection not apply equally to "preferable?"

 

I don't know.  It is not my assertion, nor is it my objection.  I don't know where you're getting this.

 

 

 

If you included the context, I might remember more clearly. If I recall, you made some convoluted jargon statement that could be decoded with difficulty into something clear and concise, understandable by a person who has not spent months studying.

 

I wrote, "The difference between personal preferences and universal preferences is purposefully implied.  Personal preferences are things that have no moral bearing in universal application, such as preferring chocolate ice cream to vanilla.  Preferences do refer to a ranking, and this is apparent in Stefan's proof.  'Not murder' is ranked as preferred to 'murder,' and 'chocolate ice cream' and 'vanilla ice cream' are morally indifferent."

 

In response, you quoted this segment and wrote, "You are making my case for me."

 

So now that you have the full context, what is your case?

 

 

 

The moral propositions are all of the form, "don't do X." Subcategories within the category of not doing X gets treated as practically irrelevant in the UPB book. Maybe I am distorting it, but I think UPB is all about drawing that line between what moral propositions are universal and aren't, what the universal moral propositions allow and what they prohibit, and justifying that.

"Don't murder" is a conclusion drawn from UPB.  UPB is a methodology to render universal statements of preference.  UPB is more than a list of conclusions, and this is what makes it such a substantial proof.  

 

Moral propositions cannot "prohibit" anything.  They have no capacity for action.  "To prohibit" something is an action.

[TDB]

No, it does not. The implication of the word "universally" combined with the word "preferable" and "behaviour" is that the "goal" is the ends of all human action. It follows that the "whom," therefore, is the whole of humanity.

Somehow that implication snuck past me. Maybe we could make it more clear?

Preference can always be reduced to a binary categorization. If one prefers [1] to [0], the word 'prefer' implies that the individual would like, want, or tolerate [1] over [0]. If you can think of a preference that cannot be reduced to a binary categorization, I would love to hear it.

Didn't say "cannot." My point is it is confusing, overly complicated, not wrong. Preference implies a ranking with a top choice and some number of losers. Here there are infinite choices, sorted into 2 categories, with no particular ranking within the categories. Somehow I think you're arguing about something else. Are we having one of those Internet moments?

If something is universally preferable, it is, therefore, objectively measurable. The only way one could deduce whether something is universally preferable would be to measure the preference according to an objective standard.

I am happy you are so comfortable with the jargon. If you understood this immediately, you are unusually perceptive. I didn't get it for a long time. I'm not entirely sure I get it now. Hence my desire to simplify, if possible.

Whether something is easily understandable is not a measure of its truth value. Calculus is confusing to the "uninitiated," but this does not devalue its proofs.

The discussion on my end has never been about truth value. It is about trying to express a simple idea in simple language for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with it. I'm not willing to tackle calculus, but if I thought I could make it simpler, I'd give it a try.

Nobody "gave us" non-aggression. Nobody "gave us" property. The answer is, simply, no one.

Precisely My point.

There cannot be a preference without a preferrer, any more than there can be an act without an actor.

So why are you okay with "universally preferable Behaviour" not not "universally sufficient Behaviour?" That was your objection, wasn't it, that sufficiency needs someone for whom it is sufficient? Is there a better word? "Conforms to the standard?"

I wrote, "The difference between personal preferences and universal preferences is purposefully implied. Personal preferences are things that have no moral bearing in universal application, such as preferring chocolate ice cream to vanilla. Preferences do refer to a ranking, and this is apparent in Stefan's proof. 'Not murder' is ranked as preferred to 'murder,' and 'chocolate ice cream' and 'vanilla ice cream' are morally indifferent."In response, you quoted this segment and wrote, "You are making my case for me."So now that you have the full context, what is your case?

My case is, anyone who has not spent plenty of effort previously to get up to speed on UPB would find that incomprehensible. Now that (I hope) I have a clue, it seems like irrelevant jargonizing. There may be a point underneath all the verbiage, but well hidden. It would not be necessary at all, if a more descriptive phrase, like "universally sufficient," was used in place of "universally preferable."

"Don't murder" is a conclusion drawn from UPB. UPB is a methodology to render universal statements of preference. UPB is more than a list of conclusions, and this is what makes it such a substantial proof. Moral propositions cannot "prohibit" anything. They have no capacity for action. "To prohibit" something is an action.

Okay, what verb would you like to use? I hope we agree that they define distinctions, maybe that phrase works better? Delineate? Draw distinctions? Categorize action into okay and not okay?

[shirgall]

If you think UPB is hard to grasp, check out its cousin, the Categorical Imperative:

 

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."

[labmath2]

If you think UPB is hard to grasp, check out its cousin, the Categorical Imperative:

 

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."

i actually think this is easier to grasp. My only objection to it is that i do not think anyone wants most of the things they do to become universal law, i certainly do not. 

[shirgall]

i actually think this is easier to grasp. My only objection to it is that i do not think anyone wants most of the things they do to become universal law, i certainly do not. 

 

 

I don't think people *want* their actions to become universal laws, but the point is to evaluate actions as if they should be a universal law to judge their morality. Your mind is already pretty good at that "spidey sense" that some action might not be right, and UPB, the Golden Rule, the Categorical Imperative, and their cousins are all there in the toolbox to help you evaluate them.

[TDB]

behaviour that everybody can potentially prefer at the same time without logical contradictions.

Or, rules that everyone can obey at the same time without logical contradictions.

[TheMatrixHasMe]

This video might help too.   Ethics Redux! Universally Preferable Behaviour Revisited...