I need help with fully understanding UPB

[GYre0ePJhZ]

Hey party people,

 

I read UPB a year ago, and while I agreed and still agree with the conclusions of the book, I think I understand it more at an emotional level than at an intellectual level. Like how kids instinctually understand the hypocricy of their parents without being able to verbalize what exactly is hypocritical.

 

This is a problem for me if I want to argue its validity, which I have refrained from since I know I don't understand it enough to be able do it justice or even persuade others. I now want to really wrap my head around it and play the devil's advocate and shoot it down to the best of my abilities. I hope you will endulge me in spite of my staccato try-hard semi-academic English writing, which is my second language. It is of utmost importance to me that you point out where I am in error since I with this post implicitly assume that speaking the truth is universally preferable

 

I think a good place to start would be for me to summarize UPB with my own words:

 

If I were to summarize UPB I would say that it's validity hinges on that the very act of participating in debate over ethics implicitly assumes that universally preferable behavior is valid. If you don't accept UPB, despite participating in debates over ethics, you face a self-detonating contradiction; your arguments are not consistent with your behavior and thus you are a hypocrit that imposes standards on others which you exempt yourself from.

 

If this summary is accurate I have some objections from a devil's advocate position, but I think to have understood it is important before I can play this role. So would you say this is a good summary of UPB?

[cynicist]

Well you are exactly correct on why UPB is valid and cannot be rationally rejected, but it's important to note that there is a difference between UPB as a concept and the application of UPB to morality. I think a large part of what confused me and what continues to confuse others is that in the book, Stefan refers to both of those as just "UPB". To be more clear let me use another example of UPB besides morality.

 

Science is UPB. If your purpose is to know the truth, then using the scientific method is required. The scientific method itself is entirely optional, you can use chicken entrails instead, but the results of your divination won't be objective.

 

Now the moral corollary is:

 

Morality is UPB. If your purpose is to be good, then using "X" is required. Morality itself is optional, but without it you will not achieve virtue.

 

See there isn't really a good word for the application of UPB to the moral sphere, something like the moral method or ethical method, as there is for science. Stefan compromises by just saying UPB or UPB framework, which is perfectly fine, but it can throw people off when going from UPB as a concept to UPB in application to morality. 

 

Anyway, your summary is accurate (albeit incomplete) so I would love to hear the objection.

 

(It took me a loooong time to understand UPB so don't worry if you are uncertain, I've 'finally understood" UPB a few times now )

If you don't accept UPB, despite participating in debates over ethics, you face a self-detonating contradiction; your arguments are not consistent with your behavior and thus you are a hypocrite that imposes standards on others which you exempt yourself from.

 

Actually I want to add a caveat here. It's not just that you are a 'hypocrite', it's that by debating with someone you are affirming UPB as valid. So you are denying it with your words but just through the act of debating you are proving its validity. In other words, you can't exempt yourself from the standard.

 

It's the same as the self-detonating argument that, "Language is meaningless". There is no need to argue with the person because they have contradicted their assertion already through their actions.

[GYre0ePJhZ]

Thanks for your reply, cynisist! I really enjoyed your answer. It is bedtime here in Europe, so I will get back to this thread tomorrow when I have more time to both think and reply with something of intelligence

[Kevin Beal]

If I were to summarize UPB I would say that it's validity hinges on that the very act of participating in debate over ethics implicitly assumes that universally preferable behavior is valid. If you don't accept UPB, despite participating in debates over ethics, you face a self-detonating contradiction; your arguments are not consistent with your behavior and thus you are a hypocrit that imposes standards on others which you exempt yourself from.

But even more than hypocritical, it's just plain illogical.

 

Stef talks about this in great detail in his recent Analytical Rejection argument.

 

He starts by saying:

 

 

 

Tu quoque is the fallacy of rejecting a moral theory due to the hypocrisy of the moralist. If a slave owner argues that slavery is immoral, we cannot reject the immorality of slavery because the moralist owns slaves.

 

However, while it is a fallacy to reject a moral theory due to the moral hypocrisies of the theorist, there are two components to rejecting a theory. The first is to prove that the theory is necessarily and universally false, and the second is to reject the competence of the theorist.

 

The focus has to be on the methodology rather than the conclusions:

 

 

 

Imagine that, in a loud bar, someone asks me for the name of a country that borders on Greece, but I hear him asking for the name of a flightless bird that Americans eat on Thanksgiving.

I reply, of course, “Turkey.”Am I correct?There are two ways of answering that – one is to focus on the conclusion, the other is to focus on the methodology. If I focus on the conclusion, then I have used the right word, and my answer is correct.In the same way, if I only speak English, but somehow end up on a Japanese game show, and the host asks me a question, and I make some fake Japanese sounding syllables, and those syllables happen to be the correct answer, am I right?A parrot can be trained to say “64.” If a man asks the parrot what two to the sixth power is, does the parrot’s response mean that it understands mathematics? 

Of course not.

 

In the case of the person arguing against UPB, it is the methodology that we focus on. For more you should read the full essay.

[GYre0ePJhZ]

Well you are exactly correct on why UPB is valid and cannot be rationally rejected, but it's important to note that there is a difference between UPB as a concept and the application of UPB to morality.

 

When I summarized UPB, I only mentioned the reason why one cannot rationally reject UPB in the realm of ethics, while a complete picture of UPB also takes into account what UPB is as a concept?

 

If so, then UPB as a concept is an umbrella term, which rests on eight premises a person implicitly accepts as factual when participating in debate?:

• We both exist
• The senses have the capacity for accuracy
• Language has the capacity for meaning
• Correction requires universal preferences
• An objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood
• Truth is better than falsehood
• Peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes
• Individuals are responsible for their actions

From those eight premises, one can deduce that both the scientific method and the ‘moral method’ are true. Am I in the right here?

Are there other such methodologies? The ‘aesthetic’ method?

 

But even more than hypocritical, it's just plain illogical.

 

 

I am not sure what you mean by this. Is your meaning that I am wrong when I say that it is hypocritical to reject UPB, or is it that it is accurate but it is in addition to being hypocritical, illogical to reject UPB? Also, is that which is illogical something that is 'more' than that which is hypocritical in a quantitative sense? In that case, compared to what standard is it 'more'? I am also not sure what the adjective ‘plain’ is supposed to add to the meaning here. Did you mean: It is not only hypocritical it is also illogical?

 

I know readers may perceive me as annoying and nit-picky, but it is important to me that I get this right. In addition, I think I cannot understand how that which you write afterwards is relevant to my post unless I understand that first sentence.

 

This post of mine wins the FDR question mark contest btw

[Kevin Beal]

Did you mean: It is not only hypocritical it is also illogical?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I just mean to point out that a person can be hypocritical and still have a conclusion be true which is why a lot of people don't care about this performative contradiction. The point of the analytical rejection is to show how how a conclusion can only be logical if the methodology is logical (it can't be accidentally logical, for example).

[cynicist]

From those eight premises, one can deduce that both the scientific method and the ‘moral method’ are true. Am I in the right here?

 

Well, those eight premises are how he establishes UPB (the possibility of objective/universal preferences), and the scientific method (as well as the "moral method") are just applications of UPB. So in a sense they are just practical examples of the theory in action. It's like if I come up with the idea of a vehicle and then use that in order to build a car, snowmobile, and a bicycle. The idea of a vehicle doesn't prove that those things can exist, they can only exist if the idea of a vehicle is logical and consistent and therefore applicable to the real world. I hope that makes sense.

 

Some people get confused and think that the point of UPB is to say what morality should be, but it's actual purpose is to establish a logical framework for testing ideas of morality. Any idea of morality must conform to certain expectations (the primary one that people are familiar with is universality) and so in UPB these expectations are both enumerated and tested against modern day examples of what we think of as valid moral rules. (don't rape, don't kill, don't steal, etc)

 

Are there other such methodologies? The ‘aesthetic’ method?

 

If you look on page 50, Stefan uses aesthetic to distinguish from enforceable preferences (unavoidable) in order to separate ethics from other things. (like science, which has nothing to do with force) I'm not sure what you mean by aesthetic method or other methodologies, could you be more specific? Methodologies for doing what?

 

Edit: Ah ok nevermind I think I understand. Yes there are other things that UPB can be applied to, like language.

[GYre0ePJhZ]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I just mean to point out that a person can be hypocritical and still have a conclusion be true which is why a lot of people don't care about this performative contradiction. The point of the analytical rejection is to show how how a conclusion can only be logical if the methodology is logical (it can't be accidentally logical, for example).

 

 

Well, those eight premises are how he establishes UPB (the possibility of objective/universal preferences), and the scientific method (as well as the "moral method") are just applications of UPB. So in a sense they are just practical examples of the theory in action. It's like if I come up with the idea of a vehicle and then use that in order to build a car, snowmobile, and a bicycle. The idea of a vehicle doesn't prove that those things can exist, they can only exist if the idea of a vehicle is logical and consistent and therefore applicable to the real world. I hope that makes sense.

 

Some people get confused and think that the point of UPB is to say what morality should be, but it's actual purpose is to establish a logical framework for testing ideas of morality. Any idea of morality must conform to certain expectations (the primary one that people are familiar with is universality) and so in UPB these expectations are both enumerated and tested against modern day examples of what we think of as valid moral rules. (don't rape, don't kill, don't steal, etc)

 

So UPB does not decide what is true about morality or not, the same way it does not decide what is true about the physical world. To participate in debate over morality and the physical world, one logically have to accept UPB as a framework for investigating such matters. For physics this application is called the scientific method while it for morality is called the 'moral method' (I actually think I will adopt this word when I think about how UPB applies to morality so I do not confuse the heck out of myself).

 

Is this a correct interpretation? If so, you deserve reddit gold

[cynicist]

Lol first of all I just wanted to say I do the exact same thing to avoid getting confused, sometimes I even have to think in terms of science/the scientific method in order to get things straight.

 

Your interpretation is exactly correct. I will add an additional piece of information to demonstrate how difficult it is to challenge the idea. Not only can you not argue against ethics without using UPB, you can't even argue against UPB without exhibiting UPB. (since doing so is to say that one should prefer truth over falsehood, which is itself a universal and binding preference) There are certainly areas where my understanding could be improved but how air-tight parts of it are just causes me to shake my head in disbelief. I don't envy people who want to criticize it, it's a tough thing to do if you actually understand what is written.

 

And thank you, the compliment is enough. 

[GYre0ePJhZ]

Alright. I will start to bring forth the devil inside to try to shoot UPB down. I want to reiterate that I don't do this to be a jerk, because I understand that I implicitly accept UPB when trying to reach the truth. Maybe it helps sharpen your blade too.

 

---

 

What first came to my mind was how Carthage was obliterated by Rome in the 3rd century BC. After Rome had won the third Punic war, Rome sent a cohort of diplomats to supposedly iron out peace terms. However, the diplomats were sent more as a courtesy of keeping up the veneer of civility while they in reality wanted to destroy Carthage completely, which they in the end did no matter what the Carthaginians agreed to.

 

I do not see how UPB makes it binding upon the Romans to not destroy Carthage. What UPB would persuade the Romans to alter is not the destruction of Rome, but rather to not send diplomats under the pretense of peace.

 

Roman Aristocracy: "Alright Mr. Molyneux, you make a fine, fine argument. You have convinced us to not send our diplomats, but just outright murder all of Carthage instead so we don't have to be illogical, as sending a diplomatic cohort implicitly binds us to the assumption that peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes."

 

------

 

I don't know how good this argument is. The problem the devil here lines out, is how we can make it binding upon evil people to be virtuous. What the application of UPB does in this instance is to reveal the evils of the Roman aristocracy to the public and to dissuade the aristocracy from pretending to be good through sending diplomats. It does not prove the falsehood of UPB. It just proves that the Romans were evil as murder is not something that is universally preferable.

 

Does this make any sense?

[cynicist]

I do not see how UPB makes it binding upon the Romans to not destroy Carthage. What UPB would persuade the Romans to alter is not the destruction of Rome, but rather to not send diplomats under the pretense of peace.

 

Oh, haha, it doesn't. It wouldn't even persuade them not to send diplomats, they would do it anyway.

 

I don't know how good this argument is. The problem the devil here lines out, is how we can make it binding upon evil people to be virtuous. What the application of UPB does in this instance is to reveal the evils of the Roman aristocracy to the public and to dissuade the aristocracy from pretending to be good through sending diplomats. It does not prove the falsehood of UPB. It just proves that the Romans were evil as murder is not something that is universally preferable.

 

Does this make any sense?

 

Yes it seems you understand it pretty well. The reality is that morality is completely optional, just like science. Mystics can say that they get the truth through prayer, and evil people can say they are doing good when they steal from others to pay for social programs. What it does do is give people a rational way to approach ethics rather than relying on something arbitrary like the bible or your elders. There's no way for UPB to make anyone do anything. It doesn't claim to solve the famous is/ought dichotomy. (which is the idea that you can say what people should do, based on what exists in reality)

[GYre0ePJhZ]

What it does do is give people a rational way to approach ethics rather than relying on something arbitrary like the bible or your elders. There's no way for UPB to make anyone do anything. It doesn't claim to solve the famous is/ought dichotomy. (which is the idea that you can say what people should do, based on what exists in reality)

 

So I can't tell someone that they shouldn't kill someone because that behavior fails the moral method. But I can tell them that if they do choose to kill, their actions fail the moral method and they are exhibiting immoral behvior. Thus, it is not a normative statement, just a decriptive one. How does a failure to follow the moral method justify sending people to jail if immoral behavior is not something they should not do? It is, as you said, optional with no "shoulds" attached to it.

 

Analogy with the scientific method:

 

I can't tell someone that they shouldn't use chicken entrails to discover any truths about reality because it fails the scientific method. But I can tell them that if they do choose to use chicken entrails to discover any truths about reality, their actions fail the scientific method and thus, they are exhibiting unscientific behavior. Thus, it is not a normative statement, just a descriptive one. How does the failues to follow the scientific method justify sending people to jail if unscientific behavior is not something they should not do? It is optional with no shoulds attached.

[cynicist]

So I can't tell someone that they shouldn't kill someone because that behavior fails the moral method. But I can tell them that if they do choose to kill, their actions fail the moral method and they are exhibiting immoral behvior. Thus, it is not a normative statement, just a decriptive one. How does a failure to follow the moral method justify sending people to jail if immoral behavior is not something they should not do? It is, as you said, optional with no "shoulds" attached to it.

 

Yeah this is something that is not really mentioned in UPB itself. The way that I look at it is that someone who uses force against another person is rejecting that person's right to own themselves, similar to how a thief who takes your property is rejecting property rights for you. Since these are universals, they cannot reject something for you without it reciprocally affecting them. So if they are not respecting your ownership of your own body, you are justified in not respecting theirs since they are forfeiting it through attacking you. This is how self-defense is justified.

 

Now whether that means you can imprison someone or not becomes rather challenging and technical, but certainly if they are too dangerous to be around others then I can see a self-defense argument there. Ideally, by the time UPB is well understood we'll have methods of prevention in place rather than trying to deal with the after-effects. The most important thing is recognizing ethics as an objective discipline first.

 

Analogy with the scientific method:

 

I can't tell someone that they shouldn't use chicken entrails to discover any truths about reality because it fails the scientific method. But I can tell them that if they do choose to use chicken entrails to discover any truths about reality, their actions fail the scientific method and thus, they are exhibiting unscientific behavior. Thus, it is not a normative statement, just a descriptive one. How does the failues to follow the scientific method justify sending people to jail if unscientific behavior is not something they should not do? It is optional with no shoulds attached.

 

This, unfortunately, is where the analogy with science breaks down. The difference between science and ethics is that ethics deals with enforceable preferences while science is an aesthetic preference. Stefan goes over this in detail starting on page 48 in the book.

[labmath2]

I am going to lay out some of the fundamental arguments that i think are confusing or maybe incorrect in UPB.

 

UPB is an attempt to create the scientific method equivalence in philosophy. There appears to be a misconception here since the scientific method is simply a systematic test which still relies on reality. Take Newton's laws of motion, how would you subject them to the scientific method? Well, you would go outside and say if newton is right, then x must be true. With UPB, what would be measured? While this is not very clear, my understanding is that you apply two tests, 1. Is it universalizable, 2. When it is universalized, does it lead to contradictions or is it impossible to be performed by everyone at all times and everywhere. There is another restriction on what we can apply UPB to and that is actions that involve one person interacting with another person (there is no clear reason as to why UPB only applies to humans, the only reason i can deduce from the book is capacity for reason, but there is no proposed way to measure this, so it seems to assume only humans have capacity for reason and i am not sure if it treats everyone equally in this regards or those who have greater capacity for reason have greater rights and those who have lower capacity for reason have lower rights). 

 

Then comes the moral theory from UPB which states the initiation of force is immoral and this extends from self ownership. Self-Ownership is a rather complex concept as it implies the self as property and owner. The first apparent concern is can one be owned by others? If the self is a property, then it can be bargained with like any other property, and if i were to enter into a contract with someone saying i owned them ( assuming hey signed it when they were floating in the ocean after a shipwreck and i happened upon them and the price for saving them was for them to sign over their self-ownership or some other situation coercion which makes it moral), would that be moral? The second category of concern is if i own myself and by extension i own my actions (ownership of actions is still a bit hazy, but i assume it means owning the product of my actions), then children as property necessarily follows. I am not familiar with how this seemingly inherent conclusion is avoided, but i think children are a simply put in the special case category where your actions (all the actions that lead to the child being born) is owned by someone else, the child. This also seems to violate the rule against initiation of force (well at least within my understanding of consent as necessary for interaction with others) since the child can never consent to be born. Again, here it seems another exception is added.

 

Under the category of Initiation of force, the sentiment, at least within my limited understanding of it, seems to be "you will know when you see it." It certainly is the case that any action that impacts another person can be put in the moral category, but only few are of concern. For example, i cannot murder, rape, theft, e,t.c. Outside of these uniquely intuitive categories, there are many more categories in between that is just much more difficult to place. Contract violations for example are considered retroactive theft of property or time of another person. Would misinformation that results in loss of time or property also be considered retroactive theft of property or time? What about cases where the effect on others is benign, e.g speaking around someone, or shining a light in someone's direction. I would assume the sentiment here is that since the effect is benign, it may not necessarily count as initiation of force. However, if we take these instances to their extremes, blasting loud music all day and night or shining a laser at an airplane, do they suddenly become immoral or do they remain in the benign category? 

[cynicist]

I am going to lay out some of the fundamental arguments that i think are confusing or maybe incorrect in UPB.

 

I was going to address your points but honestly we didn't seem to get anywhere in your last thread, so as I did there I just have to recommend rereading UPB. And maybe you should make your own thread rather than posting here. (since your post doesn't seem to be addressed to Avalanche in particular)

[GYre0ePJhZ]

I re-read the part you mentioned this morning, and got confused, so I hope you still can bear with me

 

Quote from UPB page 46:

 

 

If I say that something is "morally good" - in other words, if I propose an ethical theory - then clearly I am arguing that human beings should act in a particular manner, or avoid acting in a particular manner.

 

From page 47:

 

Ethics as a discipline can be defined as any theory regarding preferable human behavior that is universal, objective, consistent - and binding.

 

 

 

Does not these quotes transform the moral method from a descriptive application of UPB with regards to behavior (i.e. killing is imorral, but not something you should not do, because it is optional to follow the moral method) into a normative application of UPB with regards to behavior (i.e. killing is immoral and something you should not do)? In the last posts we established that it is optional to follow the moral method with no 'shoulds' attached did we not?

 

Is the answer that through the act of debating ethics we are implicitly accepting that one 'ought' to follow, or avoid, whatever ethical rules are found to be true, or not true, in the framework of the moral method?

 

Edit: labmath2, I would appreciate it you made your own thread about your arguments, I experience it as distortion as I don't see how it is relevant to the purpose of this thread. It is optional on your part of course

Edited April 30, 2014 by Avalanche

[cynicist]

I re-read the part you mentioned this morning, and got confused, so I hope you still can bear with me

 

I'm happy to help

 

If I say that something is "morally good" - in other words, if I propose an ethical theory - then clearly I am arguing that human beings should act in a particular manner, or avoid acting in a particular manner

if they want to be good

 

I added the underlined bit. It's conditional on the fact. If you don't want to be good, then ethics isn't binding on you. To use the science example again, we would say that if you value truth then the results of applying the scientific method to determine the truth are binding on you, meaning that you would have to accept them. So no matter if Bob or Doug are using the scientific method to test their theories, the results of those tests would be binding on both of them. (assuming of course that the testing methodology wasn't flawed)

 

Here are some following statements from that same page for clarification (I didn't add the underlined bits this time):

 

When I speak of a universal preference, I am really defining what is objectively required, or necessary, assuming a particular goal.

 

Ethics as a discipline can be defined as any theory regarding preferable human behaviour that is universal, objective, consistent – and binding.

 

Naturally, preferential behaviour can only be binding if the goal is desired. If I say that it is preferable for human beings to exercise and eat well, I am not saying that human beings must not sit on the couch and eat potato chips. What I am saying is that if you want to be healthy, you should exercise and eat well.

 

[labmath2]

 

I'm happy to help

 

 

I added the underlined bit. It's conditional on the fact. If you don't want to be good, then ethics isn't binding on you. To use the science example again, we would say that if you value truth then the results of applying the scientific method to determine the truth are binding on you, meaning that you would have to accept them. So no matter if Bob or Doug are using the scientific method to test their theories, the results of those tests would be binding on both of them. (assuming of course that the testing methodology wasn't flawed)

 

I do not think comparing UPB to scientific method is accurate. Assume there comes along a tarot card user who predicts weather and has done so for the last 2 years giving accurate weather forecast, twice as accurate as the best forecasters now, would we say such a person is wrong because they do not the scientific method? No, we might disagree that they are truly using tarot cards to predict the weather, but we must accept that they have a better system. This is because we have reality against which to test all scientific theories, but in morality there is no such equivalence, we can only measure if you violated the moral rules or not. 

[Pelafina]

Does anyone here know the difference between UPB and Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics?

[GYre0ePJhZ]

Assume there comes along a tarot card user who predicts weather and has done so for the last 2 years giving accurate weather forecast, twice as accurate as the best forecasters now, would we say such a person is wrong because they do not the scientific method?

 

Has that ever happened? Is that assumption in the realm of what is possible in reality?

[cynicist]

I do not think comparing UPB to scientific method is accurate. Assume there comes along a tarot card user who predicts weather and has done so for the last 2 years giving accurate weather forecast, twice as accurate as the best forecasters now, would we say such a person is wrong because they do not the scientific method? No, we might disagree that they are truly using tarot cards to predict the weather, but we must accept that they have a better system. This is because we have reality against which to test all scientific theories, but in morality there is no such equivalence, we can only measure if you violated the moral rules or not. 

 

• If that were to happen we would say it was an amusing accident.
• Given that the scientific method is the only valid system for determining the truth, better is not applicable. 
• The equivalent test for morality is called logic, that's what the universalization aspect is about.

 

Does anyone here know the difference between UPB and Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics?

 

The rigor and clarity are not at all comparable, UPB goes into much more detail. Btw, Habermas and Apel came up with 'Argumentation Ethics', not Hoppe.

[Kevin Beal]

Does anyone here know the difference between UPB and Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics?

FDR554 Argumentation Ethics

 

 

 

Assume there comes along a tarot card user who predicts weather and has done so for the last 2 years giving accurate weather forecast, twice as accurate as the best forecasters now, would we say such a person is wrong because they do not the scientific method?

This may shock you, but yes, we should absolutely reject this validity of this person's approach. That's because Tarot cannot predict the weather. Whatever the explanation, either coincidence or deception of some kind, and both are crap. And that's because the claim is that tarot is enabling these predictions. It's the methodology that matters in matters of science and philosophy, not conclusions.

[labmath2]

FDR554 Argumentation Ethics

 

This may shock you, but yes, we should absolutely reject this validity of this person's approach. That's because Tarot cannot predict the weather. Whatever the explanation, either coincidence or deception of some kind, and both are crap. And that's because the claim is that tarot is enabling these predictions. It's the methodology that matters in matters of science and philosophy, not conclusions.

 

Since the idea of such a thing is ludicrous, it is easy to dismiss as something to not be taken seriously. If you think about it, most theories that are put forward were at one point or the other equally laughable to people whose belief would be affected by those theories. Imagine how ridiculous the idea that the earth revolved around the sun must have sounded during Galileo's time. The only way to validate or invalidate any claim is to see if its conclusion is more accurate than other theories that explain the same things. I do not understand what you mean by methodology, and does methodology invalidate the fact that the hypothetical tarot weather forecaster has been twice as accurate over the last two years?

 

Bringing this back to the topic, i am not sure any theory of morality, no matter how sound it is that makes killing (with consent or otherwise) moral or amoral would be accepted regardless of its logical validity.

[Kevin Beal]

Since the idea of such a thing is ludicrous, it is easy to dismiss as something to not be taken seriously. If you think about it, most theories that are put forward were at one point or the other equally laughable...

No, I'm sorry. Tarot doesn't predict the weather. It just doesn't.

 

What if we invented a hypothetical world where tarot never predicted anything better than random chance? One where there was never any evidence whatsoever that it meant anything intrinsically meaningful. Does that make my argument right then?

 

"What if" questions are, ... horse doodies.

 

What if things that are impossible were possible? Well, then those impossible things would be possible, I guess.

[cynicist]

Imagine how ridiculous the idea that the earth revolved around the sun must have sounded during Galileo's time. The only way to validate or invalidate any claim is to see if its conclusion is more accurate than other theories that explain the same things. I do not understand what you mean by methodology, and does methodology invalidate the fact that the hypothetical tarot weather forecaster has been twice as accurate over the last two years?

 

How do you know if a theory is true? You use the scientific method to test it! (this is the methodology) Galileo didn't just say, "I'd prefer it if the earth revolved around the sun".

 

Bringing this back to the topic, i am not sure any theory of morality, no matter how sound it is that makes killing (with consent or otherwise) moral or amoral would be accepted regardless of its logical validity.

 

Well it's not up to people to accept what is true. If it is logically consistent and doesn't contradict the evidence of the senses, then it is binding on people who accept the validity of the scientific method.

[GYre0ePJhZ]

 

The only way to validate or invalidate any claim is to see if its conclusion is more accurate than other theories that explain the same things.

 

No, I am sorry, but this is not the only way to validate a claim. Yes, in the social sciences were I come from we compare the explanatory power of different behavioral theories on outcomes, but all of these theories we test against reality have to pass criterions described by the scientific method before we even bother to investigate it's explanatory power.

 

As a sidenote, I think it was in the hippie times, parapsychological claims were extensively investigated over decades and found to have zero explanatory power. The tradition of the social sciences I come from have never looked back as we see that the methodology behind such claims is against both logic and evidence. In other words, we look at the methodology which produces these conclusion and we can dismiss them without anyone complaining about that, except for the superstitious, who have no authority in scientific matters anyways. So meh..

[labmath2]

How do you know if a theory is true? You use the scientific method to test it! (this is the methodology) Galileo didn't just say, "I'd prefer it if the earth revolved around the sun".

 

The problem this creates, at least to me, is that the church was right to oppose scientific thinkers. The church believed the only way to know if a theory is true is to pray about it. Which means they would have to pray to know if the scientific method is a better way to know if something is true or not, and i think we can all see the humor in this. The moment we say it does not matter what reality is, it only matters that whatever methodology we put forward is followed, we stop looking at reality, and we start looking at methodology and that makes science no better than religion. 

[cynicist]

The problem this creates, at least to me, is that the church was right to oppose scientific thinkers. The church believed the only way to know if a theory is true is to pray about it. Which means they would have to pray to know if the scientific method is a better way to know if something is true or not, and i think we can all see the humor in this. The moment we say it does not matter what reality is, it only matters that whatever methodology we put forward is followed, we stop looking at reality, and we start looking at methodology and that makes science no better than religion. 

 

Umm, you do realize that the scientific method is based on the consistency of matter and energy right? In other words, it's based on reality. I'm sort of astonished that you are trying to debate something as complex as ethics without knowing something like this first.

 

It would be one thing if you were a little uncertain (i.e. humble) about your ideas, but you are just saying things in a manner-of-fact way that I don't understand...

[GYre0ePJhZ]

The problem this creates, at least to me, is that the church was right to oppose scientific thinkers. The church believed the only way to know if a theory is true is to pray about it. Which means they would have to pray to know if the scientific method is a better way to know if something is true or not, and i think we can all see the humor in this. The moment we say it does not matter what reality is, it only matters that whatever methodology we put forward is followed, we stop looking at reality, and we start looking at methodology and that makes science no better than religion. 

 

How can a methodology derived from reality to investigate reality be to stop looking at reality?

[labmath2]

How can a methodology derived from reality to investigate reality be to stop looking at reality?

 

Correct me if i am wrong, but you and cynicist seem to be of the mindset that no matter how well the results of some other process conforms with reality, if the process is not the scientific method it must be discarded. This is what i understood from the idea that the hypothetical tarot weather forecaster must be wrong, despite more accurate weather forecasts than someone else using scientific method, because the tarot forecaster is not using a correct methodology. I cannot reconcile this idea with the idea that scientific method (as you understand it) is based on reality. 

 

This is why the idea that one can come up with a moral theory that is based purely on logic is equally confusing since the test of the success or failure of such a theory is based on logic. This does not mean we cannot come up with moral theories, but we must have something other than logic with which to verify the validity of such theories, some of which are the intuitive moral rules (do not rape, murder, etc).

[GYre0ePJhZ]

 

Correct me if i am wrong, but you and cynicist seem to be of the mindset that no matter how well the results of some other process conforms with reality, if the process is not the scientific method it must be discarded.

 

Can you show me an empirical real world example of a process that is not using the scientific method, i.e. reason and evidence, which both accurately and reliably discovers anything that is true about the physical world?

[labmath2]

Can you show me an empirical real world example of a process that is not using the scientific method, i.e. reason and evidence, which both accurately and reliably discovers anything that is true about the physical world?

 

I guess i misjudged your position. Your position is that no other process (at least to anyone's knowledge) can accurately and reliably discover anything that is true about the physical world, and i respect that. I do not know how people come up with explanations before the scientific method, but it is fair to say if those processes also produced fairy tales it must not be a very reliable one.

 

However, it still leaves the moral method open for discussion since there appears to be no reality of morals in the same sense that there is a reality of events.

[cynicist]

I cannot reconcile this idea with the idea that scientific method (as you understand it) is based on reality. 

 

If you want to debate these things you need to get a basic understanding of epistemology (the study of knowledge) and metaphysics (the nature of reality), so check out Stefan's Introduction to Philosophy series (it's quite good!). Once you get these concepts down then things like UPB won't be nearly as difficult.

[TDB]

Deleted.

[GYre0ePJhZ]

If you want to debate these things you need to get a basic understanding of epistemology (the study of knowledge) and metaphysics (the nature of reality), so check out Stefan's Introduction to Philosophy series (it's quite good!). Once you get these concepts down then things like UPB won't be nearly as difficult.

 

I second this, you can also check out what Ayn Rand wrote about it.