against UPB

[powder]

this is a response I got from someone when I proposed the idea of universal ethics:

 

To be considered "universal" a principal must be accepted by any and all people regardless of race, creed, or historical era. It is demonstrable that people's attitudes towards violence, including murder, have changed over the centuries. Even within my 42 years most people's moral stance on things like same sex marriage, racism, disciplining children, gender relationships/roles, etc. have changed radically. There have been times and societies where people have been considered to be property and killing your human property was not considered to be a crime, much less a moral or ethical problem. In today's world there are plenty of religions who see us infidels as disposable, beneath contempt and fit to be killed. Heck, they get to got to heaven with a bunch of eager virgins if they succeed. And, if we go by population numbers, they are the majority! In essence in wanting to find, or claiming there are in fact universal rules you are basically agreeing that people "vote" on morality. This is in fact true. Morals are social constructs (which several posts have already mentioned) they are the product of the people and the era in which they are found and they frequently change. This is to say nothing of things like Utilitarianism (see J.S. Mill) which holds, at a basic level, "...that the proper course of action is the one that maximizesutility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives." This is a difficult to prove, more difficult to use, Mill tried.

My take is that morality/ethics is basically conforming to social convention.

Consider: 
a. Stealing is wrong
b. allowing someone to die is wrong

(wrong is shorthand for immoral or unethical, as you like)

Your wife is dying of a disease that is curable with one dose of medicine (say a virus she contracted), but the medicine is too expensive for you to buy. You go to the pharmacy, the pharmacist says he does in fact stock the needed medicine, but he will not give it to you and you do not have the means to pay for it, nor can you borrow money.

Which is more ethical, stealing the medicine or allowing your wife to die?

Most knee jerk reactions say letting poor wife die, but if she got sick through natural causes, a case can be made that the stealing is the "more wrong" choice.


The moralist is concerned with outlining or dictating the rules of morality. Th e philosopher with examining those rule with logic (hopefully)

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

A principle does not have to be accepted by everyone in order to be universal. There's a difference between a universality accepted principle and a universal principle. A universal principle is one that applies universally, not necessarily one that is accepted universally.

[labmath2]

A principle does not have to be accepted by everyone in order to be universal. There's a difference between a universality accepted principle and a universal principle. A universal principle is one that applies universally, not necessarily one that is accepted universally.

What does it mean for a principle to be universal if no one applies it and it is not compulsory? 

Morals are inherently a consequence of interaction. To say it is universal is to say it is independent of interaction.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

What does it mean for a principle to be universal if no one applies it and it is not compulsory? 

Morals are inherently a consequence of interaction. To say it is universal is to say it is independent of interaction.

Thou shalt not eat grapes is a universal principle. 

[labmath2]

Thou shalt not eat grapes is a universal principle. 

ok

[MrCapitalism]

My take is that morality/ethics is basically conforming to social convention.

Consider: 
a. Stealing is wrong
b. allowing someone to die is wrong.

Your wife is dying of a disease that is curable with one dose of medicine (say a virus she contracted), but the medicine is too expensive for you to buy. You go to the pharmacy, the pharmacist says he does in fact stock the needed medicine, but he will not give it to you and you do not have the means to pay for it, nor can you borrow money.

Which is more ethical, stealing the medicine or allowing your wife to die?


Most knee jerk reactions say letting poor wife die, but if she got sick through natural causes, a case can be made that the stealing is the "more wrong" choice.


The moralist is concerned with outlining or dictating the rules of morality. Th e philosopher with examining those rule with logic (hopefully)

 

 

The wife is guilty of committing the fundamental and universal sin of (b) by allowing herself to die. This "universal rule" logically cannot exist without one person becoming automatically guilty of breaking it (said dying person). Therefore this ethical rule fails the test of universality. Now only have one ethical rule left, (a) "Stealing in wrong." There are no logical problems with this rule, nobody has to be automatically guilty of breaking it in the process, so it remains.

[TreesofNorthAmerica]

 

 

The wife is guilty of committing the fundamental and universal sin of (b) by allowing herself to die.

 

I hate to tell you this, but you cannot will yourself out of a terminal disease.  Even if she was cured, at some point she would cease lving.  Unless you mean to say that we are responsible for things we cannot control.  That of course doesn't make sense.  Am I responsible for the motion of the planets?  Or the kidnapping of a child by a militia in Africa?  Would I be allowing myself to die if a sudden, unexpected hailstorm left a golfball of ice in my temple?  No.

[JamesP]

this is a response I got from someone when I proposed the idea of universal ethics:

 

To be considered "universal" a principal must be accepted by any and all people regardless of race, creed, or historical era. It is demonstrable that people's attitudes towards violence, including murder, have changed over the centuries. Even within my 42 years most people's moral stance on things like same sex marriage, racism, disciplining children, gender relationships/roles, etc. have changed radically. There have been times and societies where people have been considered to be property and killing your human property was not considered to be a crime, much less a moral or ethical problem. In today's world there are plenty of religions who see us infidels as disposable, beneath contempt and fit to be killed. Heck, they get to got to heaven with a bunch of eager virgins if they succeed. And, if we go by population numbers, they are the majority! In essence in wanting to find, or claiming there are in fact universal rules you are basically agreeing that people "vote" on morality. This is in fact true. Morals are social constructs (which several posts have already mentioned) they are the product of the people and the era in which they are found and they frequently change. This is to say nothing of things like Utilitarianism (see J.S. Mill) which holds, at a basic level, "...[/size]that the proper course of action is the one that maximizesutility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives." This is a difficult to prove, more difficult to use, Mill tried.[/size]My take is that morality/ethics is basically conforming to social convention.[/size]Consider: [/size]a. Stealing is wrong[/size]b. allowing someone to die is wrong[/size](wrong is shorthand for immoral or unethical, as you like)[/size]Your wife is dying of a disease that is curable with one dose of medicine (say a virus she contracted), but the medicine is too expensive for you to buy. You go to the pharmacy, the pharmacist says he does in fact stock the needed medicine, but he will not give it to you and you do not have the means to pay for it, nor can you borrow money.Which is more ethical, stealing the medicine or allowing your wife to die?Most knee jerk reactions say letting poor wife die, but if she got sick through natural causes, a case can be made that the stealing is the "more wrong" choice.The moralist is concerned with outlining or dictating the rules of morality. Th e philosopher with examining those rule with logic (hopefully)

It seems like the world of lifeboat scenarios is populated largely by jerks.

 

Only one pharmacist has this drug? He would not sell you the drug on a payment plan? Can this guy borrow no money, ever? Where is his family? Where is his wife's family? What about his community?

 

Can the pharmacist reasonably expect to suffer no consequences from refusing to negotiate with a man whose wife is dying? Will this guy with the dying wife even be credible?

 

There are way too many questions raised by this scenario for it to reasonably be expected to shed light on real life morality.

 

It reveals far more about the person asking than any answers it may wring out of the unwary.

[meta]

Consider: 

a. Stealing is wrong

b. allowing someone to die is wrong

 

(wrong is shorthand for immoral or unethical, as you like)

 

Your wife is dying of a disease that is curable with one dose of medicine (say a virus she contracted), but the medicine is too expensive for you to buy. You go to the pharmacy, the pharmacist says he does in fact stock the needed medicine, but he will not give it to you and you do not have the means to pay for it, nor can you borrow money.

 

Which is more ethical, stealing the medicine or allowing your wife to die?

 

Most knee jerk reactions say letting poor wife die, but if she got sick through natural causes, a case can be made that the stealing is the "more wrong" choice.

 

 

The moralist is concerned with outlining or dictating the rules of morality. Th e philosopher with examining those rule with logic (hopefully)

Well if it was my wife , or my sister, someone that is still young and that I love, I would steal, especially if she is weakened by the illness.

Even if she is dying from natural causes.

I don't think I would consider UPB or universal ethics when faced with this kind of event.

What is preferable on a large scale does not always make sense in particular events like these.

I would assume the responsabilities of such action.

But there is no way i am letting a loved one die, without doing as much as i can do.

I would not go to the extent of direct violence. But stealing a medicine is not much compared to saving a life.

The pharmacist has a robbery insurance, he will get reimbursed.

But saving the life of a loved one is defenitly worth a few hundred or thousand dollars.  months in jail as well. IMO

 

 

[greekredemption]

What does it mean for a principle to be universal if no one applies it and it is not compulsory? 

Morals are inherently a consequence of interaction. To say it is universal is to say it is independent of interaction.

This is a very good question. Will anybody answer?

[june]

proposition b) cannot be a moral rule because it is a positive obligation: "you must help a dying person". so now only proposition a) -- "stealing is wrong" -- remains.and in this updated scenario, the non-immoral thing to do is to not steal the cure and have your wife die.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

This is a very good question. Will anybody answer?

A principle does not have to be accepted by everyone in order to be universal. There's a difference between a universality accepted principle and a universal principle. A universal principle is one that applies universally, not necessarily one that is accepted universally.

[labmath2]

A principle does not have to be accepted by everyone in order to be universal. There's a difference between a universality accepted principle and a universal principle. A universal principle is one that applies universally, not necessarily one that is accepted universally.

Without anyone applying moral rules, how does it apply universally? My contention here is that principles (universal or otherwise) requires interacting agents to exist (or applied). To say it it applies universally regardless of the actors brings it into the same realm as something like gravity, unless i am completely misunderstanding your meaning of "applies universally."

[AustinJames]

To say it it applies universally regardless of the actors brings it into the same realm as something like gravity

Bingo

[labmath2]

Bingo

Well then no need to make arguments or try to enforce principles, they are enforced by nature, the same way gravity is. So the next time you are robbed or attacked, do not worry, the universe will even the score (Karma).

[MrCapitalism]

Principles are not enforced by nature, they are validated by it.

[labmath2]

Principles are not enforced by nature, they are validated by it.

what does that mean? Nature is what is, it does not validate anything. We use nature to validate our theories.

[greekredemption]

Bingo

This is unsatisfactory. The corrolary of this is that morality exists without humans.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Without anyone applying moral rules, how does it apply universally? My contention here is that principles (universal or otherwise) requires interacting agents to exist (or applied). To say it it applies universally regardless of the actors brings it into the same realm as something like gravity, unless i am completely misunderstanding your meaning of "applies universally."

No, a universal principle is one that applies universally, not one that's necessarily universally accepted. A scientific principle is universal for example. It doesn't stop being universal because someone doesn't accept it. 

Who said "regardless of the actors"? Please clearly and unambiguously point out where that was stated.

There has to be at least one actor to put forward the principle.  A universal principle is a thing. A universally accepted principle is a different thing. Different. Do you understand?

Different.

[labmath2]

No, a universal principle is one that applies universally, not one that's necessarily universally accepted. A scientific principle is universal for example. It doesn't stop being universal because someone doesn't accept it. 

Who said "regardless of the actors"? Please clearly and unambiguously point out where that was stated.

There has to be at least one actor to put forward the principle.  A universal principle is a thing. A universally accepted principle is a different thing. Different. Do you understand?

Different.

I think our disagreement is based on nuance (applies universally vs could be applied universally vs is applied universally).

1. Moral principles could be applied universally and sometimes are applied universally.

2. Gravity applies universally.

When you say universal principle applies universally, are you referring to the form of statement one or the form of statement two?

If you are referring to the form of statement 2, then it is implicitly implied that it applies regardless of actors.

[AustinJames]

This is unsatisfactory. The corrolary of this is that morality exists without humans.

No. Gravity does not exist without matter.  The corollary is that morality cannot exist without humans.

[greekredemption]

No. Gravity does not exist without matter.  The corollary is that morality cannot exist without humans.

 

 

Right, but labmath said:

 

"To say it it applies universally regardless of the actors brings it into the same realm as something like gravity"

 

In that gravity applies whether humans exist or not. The same cannot be said of morality. This has implications for the definition of a 'universal principle'. For instance, professionalteabagger seems to be having trouble accepting that gravity - applying, as you point out, to all matter in the universe - is a universal principle that exists regardless of actors, is different from a moral universal principle, which is dependent on the existence of actors. It would seem that should they not accept the 'universal principle' it is by definition not universal... in the same way, paradoxically, that if some matter did not obey gravity, gravity would not be universal either.

[Liberty Bill]

You can violate the NAP if you are willing to face the punishment (which ideally should be proportional to the crime).  Steal the medicine and save your wife, but then submit to the punishment of the pharmacist.

 

I usually hear of this objection in the form of "if you were hanging from a flagpole and about to slip to your death, can you break in a window to save yourself?"  Most people would grant consent after the fact upon understanding the situation, but even if not, you're only on the hook for up to double the cost of replacing the window.

What does it mean for a principle to be universal if no one applies it and it is not compulsory? 

Morals are inherently a consequence of interaction. To say it is universal is to say it is independent of interaction.

It means that those who violate it are criminals.  Murder is a universal crime because it violates the self-evident premise of self-ownership.  That it's an acceptable outcome in some parts of the world (say, in the Middle East where sometimes a woman is stoned to death for the offense of being raped) is a non-issue, despite a common belief that morals can be subjective.  The NAP is the most powerful moral code because it's logically consistent and based on an axiom, where the others are subjective and relative.

Right, but labmath said:

 

"To say it it applies universally regardless of the actors brings it into the same realm as something like gravity"

 

In that gravity applies whether humans exist or not. The same cannot be said of morality. This has implications for the definition of a 'universal principle'. For instance, professionalteabagger seems to be having trouble accepting that gravity - applying, as you point out, to all matter in the universe - is a universal principle that exists regardless of actors, is different from a moral universal principle, which is dependent on the existence of actors. It would seem that should they not accept the 'universal principle' it is by definition not universal... in the same way, paradoxically, that if some matter did not obey gravity, gravity would not be universal either.

The existence of actors is a fact that can indeed reveal universal principles if contemplated to a significant degree.  Mises developed his entire system of economics from the fact that actors exist.  The NAP is ultimately derived from that fact as well.

[labmath2]

It means that those who violate it are criminals.  Murder is a universal crime because it violates the self-evident premise of self-ownership.  That it's an acceptable outcome in some parts of the world (say, in the Middle East where sometimes a woman is stoned to death for the offense of being raped) is a non-issue, despite a common belief that morals can be subjective.  The NAP is the most powerful moral code because it's logically consistent and based on an axiom, where the others are subjective and relative.

This statement assumes a lot of things. Self-ownership is still up for grabs as it is not the consequence of a physical property, but a value judgement. To assume all those who violate (in some sense disagree with) your principles are criminals, when the question of the debate is whether everyone has to agree for it to be universal, or whether people can disagree is to jump the gun. Going by your example, you would say those in the middle east who do not follow NAP are by definition criminals, even though in their society they are just normal. Going back to the gravity analogy, if we encounter any matter that is unaffected by gravity, we should label it anti science and punish it till it comes to its senses and starts obeying gravity. I think most of us would just say that means gravity does not affect some things ( at least in this case the matter in question).

[powder]

Right, but labmath said:

 

"To say it it applies universally regardless of the actors brings it into the same realm as something like gravity"

 

In that gravity applies whether humans exist or not. The same cannot be said of morality. This has implications for the definition of a 'universal principle'. For instance, professionalteabagger seems to be having trouble accepting that gravity - applying, as you point out, to all matter in the universe - is a universal principle that exists regardless of actors, is different from a moral universal principle, which is dependent on the existence of actors. It would seem that should they not accept the 'universal principle' it is by definition not universal... in the same way, paradoxically, that if some matter did not obey gravity, gravity would not be universal either.

math is a universal principle, 2+2=4, but not everyone has to accept or apply it.  

 

This statement assumes a lot of things. Self-ownership is still up for grabs as it is not the consequence of a physical property, but a value judgement. To assume all those who violate (in some sense disagree with) your principles are criminals, when the question of the debate is whether everyone has to agree for it to be universal, or whether people can disagree is to jump the gun. Going by your example, you would say those in the middle east who do not follow NAP are by definition criminals, even though in their society they are just normal. Going back to the gravity analogy, if we encounter any matter that is unaffected by gravity, we should label it anti science and punish it till it comes to its senses and starts obeying gravity. I think most of us would just say that means gravity does not affect some things ( at least in this case the matter in question).

how is self-ownership not a consequence of physical property?  you own your physical body and the affects of its actions.  the question is not whether everyone has to agree with a principle for it to be universally - that would be universally accepted.  I thought professionalteabagger's post was very simple and clear, what am I missing here?  

 

Stef uses the phrase 'optional human absolutes' to differentiate it from things like gravity.  it is optional to choose to believe that murder does not apply universally.  

 

from Stef's UPB book:

 

“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.

[Liberty Bill]

This statement assumes a lot of things. Self-ownership is still up for grabs as it is not the consequence of a physical property, but a value judgement. To assume all those who violate (in some sense disagree with) your principles are criminals, when the question of the debate is whether everyone has to agree for it to be universal, or whether people can disagree is to jump the gun.

Self-ownership is not a value judgement, it is a self-evident fact of nature.  Ownership is defined as the ultimate right to control, and it is a fact that only I can directly move my limbs, a fact that only I can feel my pain.  It is an axiom because denying it leads to contradiction, namely that you must exercise immediate/direct/primary control over your body just to make that argument. 

[labmath2]

Self-ownership is not a value judgement, it is a self-evident fact of nature.  Ownership is defined as the ultimate right to control, and it is a fact that only I can directly move my limbs, a fact that only I can feel my pain.  It is an axiom because denying it leads to contradiction, namely that you must exercise immediate/direct/primary control over your body just to make that argument. 

I will refer you to what i consider a very good refutation of this idea.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf

from Stef's UPB book:

 

“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.

I do not know what it means for something to be both optional and absolute. 

Aboslute-a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.

optional-available to be chosen but not obligatory.

[Liberty Bill]

I will refer you to what i consider a very good refutation of this idea.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf

Much obliged, I look forward to reading this, Murphy and Callahan are formidable, this should be good.

[Slavik]

I will refer you to what i consider a very good refutation of this idea.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf

I do not know what it means for something to be both optional and absolute. 

Aboslute-a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.

optional-available to be chosen but not obligatory.

I have read the article and I do not see any refutation.  Not needing something while making an argument (a kidney), doesnt disprove the fact of exercising full control of the kidney, which is a part of self ownership.  Also the whole "refutation" was constantly using the words "his", which is a language of self ownership.  The examples given also conflate subjective with objective: Not talking in a movie theater is subjective having nothing to do with morality.  Initiation of force on the other hand is not subjective and refers to morals. 

[powder]

I will refer you to what i consider a very good refutation of this idea.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf

I do not know what it means for something to be both optional and absolute. 

Aboslute-a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.

optional-available to be chosen but not obligatory.

2+2=4, absolute, but optional.  murder is wrong - universally valid but optional.  

[cynicist]

Was this a friend of yours? How did the rest of it go, or did you decide not to continue after this response?

[powder]

Was this a friend of yours? How did the rest of it go, or did you decide not to continue after this response?

not a friend, a member of another forum (not related to philosophy or politics but with a discussion section for politics), I have not responded since this response.  

[Slavik]

this is a response I got from someone when I proposed the idea of universal ethics:

 

To be considered "universal" a principal must be accepted by any and all people regardless of race, creed, or historical era. It is demonstrable that people's attitudes towards violence, including murder, have changed over the centuries. Even within my 42 years most people's moral stance on things like same sex marriage, racism, disciplining children, gender relationships/roles, etc. have changed radically. There have been times and societies where people have been considered to be property and killing your human property was not considered to be a crime, much less a moral or ethical problem. In today's world there are plenty of religions who see us infidels as disposable, beneath contempt and fit to be killed. Heck, they get to got to heaven with a bunch of eager virgins if they succeed. And, if we go by population numbers, they are the majority! In essence in wanting to find, or claiming there are in fact universal rules you are basically agreeing that people "vote" on morality. This is in fact true. Morals are social constructs (which several posts have already mentioned) they are the product of the people and the era in which they are found and they frequently change. This is to say nothing of things like Utilitarianism (see J.S. Mill) which holds, at a basic level, "...that the proper course of action is the one that maximizesutility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives." This is a difficult to prove, more difficult to use, Mill tried.

 

My take is that morality/ethics is basically conforming to social convention.

 

Consider: 

a. Stealing is wrong

b. allowing someone to die is wrong

 

(wrong is shorthand for immoral or unethical, as you like)

 

Your wife is dying of a disease that is curable with one dose of medicine (say a virus she contracted), but the medicine is too expensive for you to buy. You go to the pharmacy, the pharmacist says he does in fact stock the needed medicine, but he will not give it to you and you do not have the means to pay for it, nor can you borrow money.

 

Which is more ethical, stealing the medicine or allowing your wife to die?

 

Most knee jerk reactions say letting poor wife die, but if she got sick through natural causes, a case can be made that the stealing is the "more wrong" choice.

 

 

The moralist is concerned with outlining or dictating the rules of morality. Th e philosopher with examining those rule with logic (hopefully)

Considering that UPB is a "scientific method" to check moral theories with, in this instance "universal" means "applicable to all" not "accepted by all."  When a person proposes a moral theory that ends up with rape being good if you are wearing a green costume, using UPB you can show inconsistencies or contradictions, thus proving the theory wrong.