I need help with fully understanding UPB

[TDB]

I redid this answer below, due to HTML problems.

[TDB]

[...]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.[...]

Stef leaves enforcement very abstract in the book. The word is only used a few times. I can imagine 3 responses:

 

1) Some justification of sending people to jail that does not contradict itself the same way a justification of kidnapping does, not sure how. Not obvious to me.

 

2) "who said anything about jail?"

 

3) the whole UPB book is a justification of rule-enforcement as a special case.

 

I've been thinking about this also. Enforcement is violent, it is inflicted, it is not avoidable from the perspective of the rule violator. Hence it is in the category of ethics, and is either obligatory or prohibited, the 2 guys in a room either must always enforce rules or never enforce rules. To say "you may enforce the rules if you like" would treat rule enforcement as aesthetic, but it involves force, violence, not avoidable, so that won't work. The man in a coma is not able to enforce rules, so it fails the coma test. Does that mean rule enforcement is prohibited?

 

Self-defense is either a subset of rule enforcement or a very similar case.

 

Moral proposition: You must defend yourself when assaulted.

 

Fails the coma test, passes 2 guys in a room. It involves violence, not avoidable, inflicted, so it is in the ethics category. So it's either obligatory or prohibited. Failing the coma test means it cannot be obligatory. So it is prohibited. Or else it is  a special case?

 

Relevant stuff on page 87 of Stef's book:

Self-defense is the use of violence to prevent violence. If self-defense is always wrong, then it cannot be violently “inflicted” upon an attacker. However, preferences that cannot be inflicted upon others fall into the APA or morally neutral category. To place the violence of self-defense into these categories is to say that violence cannot be inflicted on others – but the very nature of violence is that it is inflicted on others, and thus this approach results in a surfeit of contradictions.

Self-defense cannot be “evil,” since evil by definition can be prevented through force. However, self-defense is a response to the initiation of force, and thus cannot be prevented through force

 

How did we get this definition of evil? Cannot be prevented in the sense of "it would be wrong" or "it can't happen no matter what?"

also on page 87:

If it is a UPB-compliant statement to say that violence is evil, then we know that, since that which is evil can be prevented through the use of violence, the use of violence to oppose violence is morally valid. Thus, since we know that violence is evil, we know that we may use force to oppose it.

He's making a distinction between violence and force. So rule-enforcment and self-defense are not violent in some sense?

page 87 again:

 

Self-defense also cannot be required behaviour, since required behaviour (“don’t rape”) can be enforced through violence, which would mean that anyone failing to violently defend himself could be legitimately aggressed against. However, someone failing to defend himself is already being aggressed against, and so we end up in a circular situation where  everyone can legitimately act violently against a person who is not defending himself, which is not only illogical,but morally abhorrent.

If Bob attacks Doug, but it is completely wrong for Doug to use violence to defend himself, then violence ends up being placed into two moral categories – the initiation of force is morally good, but self-defense is morally evil, which cannot stand according to UPB.

Why not put both instances of violence into the evil category?

[Jagsfan82]

I'm a little confused where this thread got to.  Let me try to just spew some stuff out there and see what sticks.  Correct me where my understanding of UPB is wrong please.As far as predicting the weather with tarot cards, that method would need to be reproducible by others to make any sense.  Sure we might come to the conclusion through statistical analysis in which that specific person has the ability to predict the weather through tarot cards (IE: He guessed the weather 100 times out of 100 which would only happen .001% of the time if he were guessing with no information at all, which means it would be highly against probability that he was simply guessing correct and the tarot cards had no influence), but in order to say that the tarot card method is accurate we need to get the same statistical evidence with others using the same methods.Concerning UPB, I think we need to take a step backwards to get a better understanding.  I have not FULLY read/listened about UPB, but I think I get the picture, some of which has already been mentioned.  UPB, at least to my knowledge, does not claim to be able to look at every action and define it as morally good or morally wrong.  That is to say, it does not provide positive statements of morality.  It provides negative statements, as in if you claim A is your goal, then B contradicts that goal when tested under UPB.  It does NOT say that if you claim A as your goal, then B works towards that goal, but rather comes to the conclusion that B doesn't definitively contradict your goal.  Just because it can't prove it as against your stated goal in all scenarios does not mean that it is stating it as something that is good.  A pretty good goal for all of us to rally behind would be the prolonging of the human race along with the protection of property rights.  When applying UPB to morality, they seem to want to make it into something it is not.  It does not say that everyone who applies the framework of UPB will universally do good.  People say you can use UPB to justify murder and use that as an example of why UPB isn't really valid.  Well sure, that person can use UPB to justify murder, but in order to do that, applying that persons thought process universally would result in the human race going extinct down to one remaining survivor.  I don't think thats a goal anyone is really going to rally around.  Sure you can use UPB to justify theft (not in the technical sense of the term because that would be inherently contradictory), but again, applied universally that would result in a system where people can just take anything they want at any time ignoring property rights.  Again, this is not something I am really worried about catching on.  UPB also does not imply that it is able to be applied to every situation, and using it results in all the moral activities a person can do.  Sure, it would probably be moral/ethical for me to help someone up when they fall and I'm near them.  UPB does not enter into this scenario, and to my knowledge doesn't claim to.  What it claims to do is act as a test of whether or not that action is without a doubt IMMORAL.  I can apply UPB to whether or not I can remain consistent with my morality and help that person up.  Certainly that passes the framework of UPB, therefore it would be consistent.  Sure it is also doesn't PROVE I shouldn't walk away without helping that person up, but it does present a picture in my mind of what the world would be like by doing so.  It might help me make the decision by giving me a choice of two extremes, what would happen if everyone chose to ignore the fallen, and what would happen if everyone chose to help the fallen.  Some people dislike that second part about what UPB isn't.  But thats okay.  The important part about UPB is it invalidates the obviously evil things of Rape, Theft, and Murder.   

[TDB]

[...]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?

According to my understanding, UPB seeks to show that the statement, "I am justified in breaking this rule for reasons x, y, and z," contradicts itself. This statement will contradict itself if "this rule" is presupposed by the act of arguing. Reasons x-z are irrelevant, no matter how convincing they sound.

 

Also, UPB seeks to show that for some rules, the statement "I am justified in enforcing this rule violently," does not contradict itself.

 

Rules will be violated and rules will be enforced. UPB seeks to show what is or is not justified. My understanding may be wrong.

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

Hoppe uses a very similar twist, but he goes straight from "You are arguing, which presupposes certain things," to NAP and property rights being what is presupposed. Habermas used a similar idea, but he is a Marxist, I doubt he derived property rights, he probably tried to derive socialized medicine.

[cynicist]

It does not say that everyone who applies the framework of UPB will universally do good.  People say you can use UPB to justify murder and use that as an example of why UPB isn't really valid.  Well sure, that person can use UPB to justify murder, but in order to do that, applying that persons thought process universally would result in the human race going extinct down to one remaining survivor.  I don't think thats a goal anyone is really going to rally around.  Sure you can use UPB to justify theft (not in the technical sense of the term because that would be inherently contradictory), but again, applied universally that would result in a system where people can just take anything they want at any time ignoring property rights.  Again, this is not something I am really worried about catching on.  Some people dislike that second part about what UPB isn't.  But thats okay.  The important part about UPB is it invalidates the obviously evil things of Rape, Theft, and Murder.  

 

It's better than that even. You can't universalize murder or theft, they fail the test of UPB. I think you are right that many people wish UPB would tell people what morally good actions to take, but like you I'm just happy that the big evils are taken care of.

[TDB]

 (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).

I am a bit  confused about this also. UPB hangs on participating in debate, I am very tempted to say that it applies to anyone willing and capable of participating in debate. So space aliens would be included if they arrive. Animals clearly excluded.

What about infants, coma victims, Alzheimers patients? Am I justified in treating them like animals, or is there something in the UPB concept that creates a special category for them? They are unlikely to violate moral propositions, but we could lifeboat together a weird example where they caused harm. Conventional thinking is they need a legal guardian who is responsible, but does UPB agree?

 

Other options for who UPB applies to include: anyone who argues, anyone who chooses moral agency, anyone choosing to live in society, or just everything.

[TDB]

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."

The real issue here is the murders, not the diplomats.I think UPB has 2 possible consequences.1) The Romans contradict themselves if they try to justify the murders.2) Someone would be justified in enforcing a rule against murder upon the Romans.

[GYre0ePJhZ]

The real issue here is the murders, not the diplomats.I think UPB has 2 possible consequences.1) The Romans contradict themselves if they try to justify the murders.2) Someone would be justified in enforcing a rule against murder upon the Romans.

 

Yes. I think the rule would have to be in terms of self-defense then. But the purpose of this question was to ask how UPB can tell the Romans that they 'ought' not to murder the Carthaginians. And it doesn't, it just tells them that it is evil to murder, and if you want to be good you 'ought' not murder. I would not take that assumption for granted when it comes to the sociopaths of the world though. But what UPB does, which I think is wonderful, is that it reveals who those sociopaths who doesn't want to be good are. Because the choice becomes so apparent: Either the sociopaths have to admit that they don't want to be good, or they have to conform to UPB.

 

I have a new thought about UPB working on another level as well. Let me know what you think. UPB reveals those (e.g. parents, priests, politicians) who people want to protect as evil through making the choice apparent: Either those that people want to protect would have wanted to be good, or they would have conformed to UPB. If they did not conform to UPB they did not want to be good. What do you think?

[TDB]

[...] the purpose of this question was to ask how UPB can tell the Romans that they 'ought' not to murder the Carthaginians. And it doesn't, [...] it reveals who those sociopaths who doesn't want to be good are. Because the choice becomes so apparent: Either the sociopaths have to admit that they don't want to be good, or they have to conform to UPB.

Yes, and even if sociopaths don't care personally, they need to justify themselves to the people around them, or get outed and denounced.

 

Of course, if you're a general in the Roman army, you participate in a massive social arrangement dedicated to justifying your actions, and few if any persons around you have an instinctive grasp of UPB, much less an opportunity to do anything about it. So if "ought" here means could we have saved Carthage by teaching the Romans philosophy, no, probably not. No more than you could end the empire by teaching Obama philosophy.  But they would not want to hear philosophy, and the Romans would probably kill any philosophers who tried to spread the truth. Human beings are good at lying to themselves, especially when it is dangerous or costly to speak the truth.

 

I have a new thought about UPB working on another level as well. Let me know what you think. UPB reveals those (e.g. parents, priests, politicians) who people want to protect as evil through making the choice apparent: Either those that people want to protect would have wanted to be good, or they would have conformed to UPB. If they did not conform to UPB they did not want to be good. What do you think?

I don't think that holds in all cases. You've put it in abstract terms, maybe I am not understanding. Hmm... Does this count as a counterexample? Stef has defended a lifeboat situation where I steal rather than starve.  We could make the example very elaborate, and have me be willing to make restitution afterwards, etc., but I do violate UPB. Does this mean I don't want to be good? Maybe that is not even a helpful way to express it.

[GYre0ePJhZ]

I don't think that holds in all cases. You've put it in abstract terms, maybe I am not understanding. Hmm... Does this count as a counterexample? Stef has defended a lifeboat situation where I steal rather than starve.  We could make the example very elaborate, and have me be willing to make restitution afterwards, etc., but I do violate UPB. Does this mean I don't want to be good? Maybe that is not even a helpful way to express it.

 

I was thinking about an instance where a child who want to believe that their parents are good or atleast want to be good, even when the parents have abused them. In this case, children have to admit that their parents did not want to be good since the parents did not conform to UPB. If they had wanted to be good, they would have conformed to UPB.

 

I think a lifeboat scenario is an instance where this rationale would not apply, yes. I think in a lifeboat scenario where people have to steal to survive, the thief is with their actions saying that they do not value being good as much as being alive.

 

Hmm...I sort of get objectivist vibes from what I am writing now. I'm not sure what to think.

 

What is the approach people take towards lifeboat scenarios here? I do not find them particularly interesting myself, but I think there is some value in knowing how to answer such conjectures if I meet people who bring it up.

[cynicist]

You've put it in abstract terms, maybe I am not understanding. Hmm... Does this count as a counterexample? Stef has defended a lifeboat situation where I steal rather than starve.  We could make the example very elaborate, and have me be willing to make restitution afterwards, etc., but I do violate UPB. Does this mean I don't want to be good? Maybe that is not even a helpful way to express it.

 

Morality doesn't apply to life and death scenarios. If you are going to die and stealing is the only way you can survive, it is hard to say that you can only be moral by letting yourself starve to death. Once you are dead you are incapable of any choices at all.

 

What is the approach people take towards lifeboat scenarios here? I do not find them particularly interesting myself, but I think there is some value in knowing how to answer such conjectures if I meet people who bring it up.

 

Most of the time when people bring them up they are just trying to find a way out of UPB, since they don't want the consequences of actually putting UPB into practice to accrue to them or their family. It's the same as when people bring up gray areas is if somehow that means we shouldn't use UPB at all, like for stopping wars, child abuse, etc. I'm comfortable with having a few gray areas and stopping 99.9% of violence in the world, so my response would be to say that if a drug had a 99.9% success rate against cancer, wouldn't you give it to people despite the 0.1% of cases that it doesn't work in?

 

After that it is probably a good idea to investigate what they are avoiding in their personal lives by trying to discredit UPB, because if they aren't aware that it's a defense mechanism in their minds then they will never be able to fully get UPB and there is no point in discussing the abstract details of it.

[TDB]

Morality doesn't apply to life and death scenarios. If you are going to die and stealing is the only way you can survive, it is hard to say that you can only be moral by letting yourself starve to death. Once you are dead you are incapable of any choices at all.

It's not clear whether you agree or disagree. Are you saying "of course people will violate UPB if they believe their lives depend on it," or "that's not a UPB violation?"

I was thinking about an instance where a child who want to believe that their parents are good or atleast want to be good, even when the parents have abused them. In this case, children have to admit that their parents did not want to be good since the parents did not conform to UPB. If they had wanted to be good, they would have conformed to UPB.

 My reaction is strange. That's why I nit-picked your broad generalization, I guess. Hard to articulate. Maybe I am thinking that ordinary culture is so full of sophistic rationalization, maybe they can convince themselves they want to be good and are good. I'm pretty sure Stef would disagree with me on some level, though I'm not sure how he would express his disagreement. 

What is the approach people take towards lifeboat scenarios here? I do not find them particularly interesting myself, but I think there is some value in knowing how to answer such conjectures if I meet people who bring it up.

I'm willing to think about them, not willing to base my entire philosophy on them.

[cynicist]

I'm saying that morality, which is an application of UPB, is not applicable.

[GYre0ePJhZ]

I think this summarize the answers to lifeboat scenarios:

• Most people would commit immoral actions in situations of inavoidability in order to survive.
• Life and death scenarios do not render the science of morality moot anymore than genetical mutations render the science of biology moot.
• A science of morality decreases the chance of suffering immorality.
• A science of morality that can answer to 99.9 % of the worlds evils is good enough.

 

I do not think number 1 invalidates UPB as UPB even in lifeboat scenarios hold that stealing is immoral. The fact that many do something does not make it moral. It just describes that most people value being alive more than being moral, which is optional.

 

I do think that 2-4 are reasonable arguments. However, I don't think they are derived from first principles.

 

Number 2 may by some be intepreted as validation through analogy, but I don't think it makes the argument unreasonable.

 

Number 3-4 are utilitarian arguments, which I find convincing. But I remember Stef ones said that utilitarianism does not have anything to do with philosophy, which would be an argument against it. This is what Block argued when Stef talked about the consequences of spanking as well.

 

I think it still is reasonable to accept UPB due to utilitarian reasons, and because science is not invalidated even with anomalies in for instance biology.

 

I think actually I will make it a goal of mine to make lifeboat scenarios the biggest ethical problem the future face, as that would be a proof that we have done our job through removing 99.9 % of the evils that pester our world today. Gotta have our priorities straight, man

I'm saying that morality, which is an application of UPB, is not applicable.

 

I have the impression that UPB is applicable in lifeboat scenarios, but that it is reasonable to opt out in situations of life and death.

[cynicist]

I have the impression that UPB is applicable in lifeboat scenarios, but that it is reasonable to opt out in situations of if life and death.

 

A lifeboat scenario is a gray area that is very complicated, it's not the same as a life or death situation. Morality requires choice, which is why it does not apply to people who are asleep or otherwise incapacitated, despite things like physics which are active no matter what. (it's also why we don't put animals in moral categories) If you value life at all, which is a safe assumption given the fact that you are alive and performing activities required to sustain that life, then choosing an immoral act vs death is not really a choice at all. (it's similar to why murder is widely considered one of the worst possible crimes, because it is the destruction of the body and a complete elimination of any future choice)

 

Remember, one of the defining characteristics of force is the restriction of choice.

[GYre0ePJhZ]

A lifeboat scenario is a gray area that is very complicated, it's not the same as a life or death situation.

What is the difference? I mean, they are often intertwined.

[cynicist]

What is the difference? I mean, they are often intertwined.

 

They are, and maybe this is just the way I see it but I always thought of a lifeboat scenario as a sort of emergency around resource distribution. Like if there are several different people on a boat with very little food, how do you decide who gets what? 

 

If you are talking about a single guy or kid who can choose to starve to death or steal some food from a street vendor, that's not exactly a complex choice. I mean is there anyone who would say that the person should die rather than steal? I would find it hard to believe...

[GYre0ePJhZ]

Yeah, I agree. I think that is a useful distinction.

 

Then let me rephrase. UPB is still apllicable in life and death situations, but it is reasonable to opt out. How can stealing become universably preferable behavior in a life and death situation? The same logical inconsistency is involved would you not agree?

 

I would still contend that there is still a choice involved, not a very hard one, but still a choice, as evidenced by suicides, which is an action some choose.

 

Quote from UPB:

 

This is not to say that breaking the window to save your life is not wrong. It is, but it is a wrong that almost all of us would choose to commit rather than die (p. 92).

[cynicist]

Then let me rephrase. UPB is still apllicable in life and death situations, but it is reasonable to opt out. How can stealing become universably preferable behavior in a life and death situation? The same logical inconsistency is involved would you not agree?

 

I would still contend that there is still a choice involved, not a very hard one, but still a choice, as evidenced by suicides, which is an action some choose.

 

Quote from UPB:

 

Actually I've thought about it and I think you are correct and I wasn't in this case. I was thinking that since no one would consider it immoral that it wasn't immoral, but that's not the reality. It's wrong no matter what, it's just that no one would care to prosecute you for it. So thanks for the correction.

[GYre0ePJhZ]

 

Actually I've thought about it and I think you are correct and I wasn't in this case. I was thinking that since no one would consider it immoral that it wasn't immoral, but that's not the reality. It's wrong no matter what, it's just that no one would care to prosecute you for it. So thanks for the correction.

 

Glad to be of help

[TDB]

Glad to be of help

Avalanche, I think this thread should have the "UPB" tag. You, as original poster, have the ability to add the tag, if I understand correctly. Would you consider it. please?

 

By the way, I just release 0.2 of my UPB FAQ. I am still not happy with it, but hey, something is better than nothing. Comment if you have new questions or better answers.

[GYre0ePJhZ]

Avalanche, I think this thread should have the "UPB" tag. You, as original poster, have the ability to add the tag, if I understand correctly. Would you consider it. please?

 

By the way, I just release 0.2 of my UPB FAQ. I am still not happy with it, but hey, something is better than nothing. Comment if you have new questions or better answers.

 

Done. I'll take a look tomorrow

[TDB]

Done. I'll take a look tomorrow

Thanks, I appreciate it.