Can UPB be made clearer and more concise?

[labmath2]

I have had many interaction with others on this forum about UPB, and i have made little headway because there appears to be slightly different interpretations of the book floating around. For a book that is meant to address such an important issue, it is not very clear and concise. I think the problem could be resolved in one of two simple ways, either Stefan writes an appendix where terms and expressions are explained or a shorter version for the book where he does not focus as much on the arguments, but explains the conclusions and simply references the original for arguments. If he really has time though, the best way, in my opinion, is to simply add syllogism trees to each section outlining the propositions and the conclusions presented in the sections. 

 

I would love to hear what others think about this and if you think there are other ways it could be done with less work, feel free to comment and if you think it should not be made more clear and concise because it is already clear and concise as it is, feel free to chuckle at me.

[Kevin Beal]

You are the common denominator in all of those interactions.

 

I had a hard time understanding it and then in researching and thinking about it more, it became much more clear to me.

 

You don't strike me as unintelligent. Maybe it's not the logic that is the issue for you? Just a thought.

[powder]

I found it a tough go as well.  I would like to see a simple, direct, layman's version and those who want more detailed arguments can go from there.  It seems to me that universal ethical propositions are intuitively accepted by the majority (NAP stuff) in everyday life to lay them out there in an easy to grasp, concise way should be simple enough.  Or maybe I'm just too simple and don't get it.  

[TDB]

it is not very clear and concise. I think the problem could be resolved in one of two simple ways, either Stefan writes an appendix [...] or a shorter version for the book [...]. If he really has time though, the best way, in my opinion, is to simply add syllogism trees to each section outlining the propositions and the conclusions presented in the sections. 

I doubt you will convince Stef to do anything, he is busy and it's not high on his list. I've been trying to move forward with my FAQ idea, but so far no one seems interested.Syllogisms are not Stef's style. I seem to remember him saying that he didn't want his audience to be just technical academic-style philosophers. And if you take a good look at the proofs on pages 40-43, I think you might agree that he is not a syllogism kind of guy. Those proofs almost made me give up on UPB, join the skeptics. They are sloppy. But a bad proof doesn't prove anything, except the author is not about proofs (and unwilling to make use of a good copy editor?). So I have not given up.

[Kevin Beal]

Those proofs almost made me give up on UPB, join the skeptics. They are sloppy.

"Sloppy" is not an argument.

 

Are they erroneous in any way? If they are, Stef is sure to listen.

 

Your criticism is sloppy.

[TDB]

"Sloppy" is not an argument. Are they erroneous in any way? If they are, Stef is sure to listen. Your criticism is sloppy.

Here is Stef's first proof.1. The proposition is: the concept “universally preferable behaviour” must be valid.2. Arguing against the validity of universally preferable behaviour demonstrates universally preferable behaviour.3. Therefore no argument against the validity of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.The terms are undefined. What does it mean for a concept to be valid or invalid? Correct? Logically consistent? It is a sketch of the beginning of a proof. Paraphrase it like so:1. I will prove X.2. Arguing against X demonstrates X.3. Q.E.D.In the paragraph preceding the proof, Stef makes his intent clear. Then he just leaves it out of the proof. The argument is not erroneous, it is absent. He needs to show how the counter argument entails the essential components of UPB.He needs something like1. Arguments against UPB are of the form "I argue that UPB is wrong for reasons h, I and j".2. Arguing entails premises x, y, and z, and norms a, b, and c.3. By reconfiguring x-z and a-c like so, bla bla bla, I derive UPB by definition.4. So all arguments against UPB are self-contradictory.Or, let "argument" stand for "the UPB critic uses argument to express the criticism"1. Assume argument 2. Assume (X implies not UPB)3. - N. Show that argument implies UPB on its own N+1. Conclude that Argument implies UPBThat is, (argument and (X implies not UPB) ) implies UPB.Hard part would be filling in step 3 through N, which is why Stef didn't bother.

[Brentb]

If there are people interested in syllogisms, but Stefan is presumably not one of them - then why ask and wait for him to do it?

[TDB]

If there are people interested in syllogisms, but Stefan is presumably not one of them - then why ask and wait for him to do it?

OP thinks this would clarify things that are confusing. I think this is true only for a small number of interested people. Presumably, OP could do it himself, if he understood UPB fully and is into that sort of thing. That's 2 big ifs that disqualify me.

[Markus FIN]

OP thinks this would clarify things that are confusing. I think this is true only for a small number of interested people. Presumably, OP could do it himself, if he understood UPB fully and is into that sort of thing. That's 2 big ifs that disqualify me.

I agree. It does not have to be Stefan himself, it can be done by someone else who has a good overall knowledge of UPB. It would really help both those who simply don't fully understand the UPB and those who don't have much previous experience on philosophy. :)Markus FIN

[Jer]

"Do not initiate aggression against your fellow humans" ?

[Ahren]

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/universally-preferable-behaviour-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics/

 

This website explained it pretty well.

[Chip]

I have no formal training, nor much knowledge at all of the study or formulation of philosophy, so forgive me if this is unintelligible.

 

Isn't that econjunkie piece flawed in that it uses "should" in the sentence "In short: UPB is any behavior that all humans at all times and at all places should follow."?

 

Can't the principle of UPB be stated correctly as "Only behavior that can be universal is ethical."?

 

It's like "Do unto others only that which they can do unto you at the same time". The Molyneux Rule?

[DaVinci]

You are the common denominator in all of those interactions. I had a hard time understanding it and then in researching and thinking about it more, it became much more clear to me. You don't strike me as unintelligent. Maybe it's not the logic that is the issue for you? Just a thought.

That is the key, to research and think about it, but reading about UPB is a little like reading about how to do statistics. You might have an idea of how it works, but you will never really know it well until you work through some problems. It is only then that you will actually "get it". I found in trying to just get the basics down I actually had to try to use UPB in arguments, run up against resistance, read and think about it more, and then try the arguments again when I had a better understanding. That process however is not something that is supplied to us. This isn't quite Stef's UPB class. This is just like reading a text book for a class you aren't in. So in that sense I can kind of see why someone might be asking for things to be a little clearer and more concise.

[TDB]

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/universally-preferable-behaviour-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics/This website explained it pretty well.

That page helped me considerably the first time I read it. It didn't give me all the answers I wanted. I wanted to know what UPB is, how it was derived, and how it is applied. It took me a long time to get to where I think I can describe what UPB is, I am still pretty fuzzy on derivation.

It's like "Do unto others only that which they can do unto you at the same time". The Molyneux Rule?

That's pretty funny, but wrong. If you give me permission to do it to you, it doesn't need to be universalizable. So, for instance, a doctor can operate on you.

[doodydota]

My personal simplification goes like this:You can objectively identify an "evil" action using the UPB method. On the other hand, you cannot objectively differentiate between "neutral" and "good" actions using UPB, because this is a subjective judgment. A lot of people are dissapointed with UPB because it fails to prescribe positive obligations, as other subjective moral systems do. However UPB shines at identifying evil.People say: there is no universal, objective moral system, because evil people. Answer: The primary application of a moral theory is not to convert bad people, but to identify them, so you can avoid or fight them. 

[MMX2010]

Answer: The primary application of a moral theory is not to convert bad people, but to identify them, so you can avoid or fight them. 

 

This poster, who's only been a member of this board for eight days, gets it!

[Lars]

Here's the basic idea as far as I have understood.

UPB defines what can only be considered evil using the axiom of self-ownership. If an action violates the Non-Aggression Principle then it is evil. An ethical proposition cannot be considered good if it cannot be universalized.

If you wish to be good, then start by not being evil. Most people are morally misguided in this regard, they want to be good yet lack fundamental principles. Others - the human predators - are only able to get away with evil for as long as they remain unidentified. UPB identifies these predators for all to see, there is no sanctuary for evil within this framework.

As opposed to mainstream ethics which heavily focuses on defining 'good' based on consequences, preferences and/or ideals, that is to create contextual exceptions and falsely legitimize evil.

[--------]

UPB is a methodology to test ethical theories. If ethical theories are not consistent, then it cannot be a valid ethical theory. When you pass the non-aggression principle through UPB, it can consistently be applied universally. I have not seen any other ethical theories do the same.

[MysterionMuffles]

I have had many interaction with others on this forum about UPB, and i have made little headway because there appears to be slightly different interpretations of the book floating around. For a book that is meant to address such an important issue, it is not very clear and concise. I think the problem could be resolved in one of two simple ways, either Stefan writes an appendix where terms and expressions are explained or a shorter version for the book where he does not focus as much on the arguments, but explains the conclusions and simply references the original for arguments. If he really has time though, the best way, in my opinion, is to simply add syllogism trees to each section outlining the propositions and the conclusions presented in the sections. 

 

I would love to hear what others think about this and if you think there are other ways it could be done with less work, feel free to comment and if you think it should not be made more clear and concise because it is already clear and concise as it is, feel free to chuckle at me.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d59yqh1cZX0

[labmath2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d59yqh1cZX0

 

This video explains why things should be universalized but actually does little to explain many of the nuances that make understanding UPB difficult. Of course things should be universalized so that no one gets a stick while someone else gets a carrot. 

[J. D. Stembal]

Do you realize that without stating the arguments, the conclusions mean nothing? What are the specific nuances of UPB that are challenging you? Murder, theft, assault or rape?

[Bedouin]

I think I have the same issue, UPB is understandable but I need more versing in the property rights aspect of UPB. Do children have full property rights or not? Because Stefan makes this distinction between children and adults when he refers to the contract parents sign (or rather, don't sign) when they have a child that means they should look after the child, and I get confused with where that leads re: children's property rights. Presumably they do not have full property rights or something because they cannot enter into contracts or consent in any meaningful fashion until 18?