Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I was trying to pin this down in another thread but didn't want to derail the conversation, hoping to explore this with the group.If the baseline for morality is the man in a coma -- he's not evil, at all, because he doesn't act -- what is *positive* virtue? I've got some ideas to throw out there, perhaps others can illustrate this more clearly with other examples or at least confirm/rebut my idea.Let's say the man in a coma is evil=0 and virtue=0, he's morally null. If this is a correct interpretation, then what action can one perform to increase virtue above the baseline?The only thing that springs to mind is helping people to do things that aren't evil...i.e. all of Stef's work on FDR, honestly answering posts on this board, etc.Also, am I correct in my interpretation that only non-actions (not murdering/raping/stealing/assaulting) are UPB? If the man in the coma must be able to do a thing for it to be UPB, and the only thing he can do is not act...that's what I'm getting from that.Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

A man is in a coma...

- in general, it is best just to stop right there, it is not a particularly useful illustration from which to create a useful example.

 

An example of a moral null is if I give you a choice to eat either an apple or an orange, and you choose the apple.  There is nothing to be learned about your virtue from that choice.

 

The interpretation of non-actions is not quite correct.  The reason being, is that a choice is an action.  If I choose not to steal, I am practicing a virtue because innately I wanted something and the nature human behavior would be to take what I wanted. So a choice that leads to non-action is an action in it of itself.

 

Coma patients are without choice. In a conversation about UPB, you can replace "coma patient" with "paper weight" for the same effect.  It is just easier for us to attach moral responsibility to a coma patient (still human) than it is a paper weight.

Posted

what is *positive* virtue? [...]Also, am I correct in my interpretation that only non-actions (not murdering/raping/stealing/assaulting) are UPB?

UPB's strength is that it is objective, based on the self-contradiction involved in justifying evil. But this also limits it. One can't pin down positive virtue in a similar way, or at least I don't see immediately how to do it.Take another approach, then. What if we believe that "If you seek goal X you must develop personality characteristic Y." (There's some better description of virtue than "personality characteristic" I am sure.) If nothing about X and Y violate UPB, Y seems like a good candidate as a virtue.Are there particular goals we "ought" to desire, an objective ranking? Is desiring a particular goal a virtue in itself? Assuming that the constraints of UPB are not violated, are all goals of equal value? Is it subjective, dependant on the attitude of the individual?
  • Upvote 1
Posted

Sorry for the delay in responding, I had dental surgery last week and my thinking has been cloudy from pain medications, didn't want that to frustrate the discussion.Triumph, have you read UPB? I've listened to the auido twice and am still trying to wrap my head around it all, but my understanding of the man in a coma is that if you propose a moral rule that he can't help but violate, that's an absurd/invalid moral rule. Thus moral rules are only valid if they prohibit certain actions rather than require action ("thou shalt not kill", valid, "thou shalt X", invalid.) Perhaps another way to look at it is to consider the man in a coma as a man locked in a rubber room wearing a straightjacket -- he can't act upon anybody else, so any action he does take is not immoral. 

"If you seek goal X you must develop personality characteristic Y." (There's some better description of virtue than "personality characteristic" I am sure.) If nothing about X and Y violate UPB, Y seems like a good candidate as a virtue.

This makes sense to me and could be the start of a method to work these things out...in that other thread, somebody (you?) mentioned that a flow-chart would be really helpful with all of this, I agree, I'd actually been thinking about it programmatically, basically the same thing...This leads me to another idea along the same vein -- perhaps virtue would be doing aesthetically positive behaviors that are also personally negative? Things like giving to charity...this is, of course, assuming that the 7 categories are not entirely mutually exclusive.

Posted

Honestly, I do try to listen to stef about UPB, but am not enthused.  UPB is so broadly defined that it is a synonym for "good".  As such, I don't find it's discussion to interesting beyond specific case by case examples. 

 

For me, "do unto others as you would like them to do unto you." is about all I have ever needed.  My philosophy is very similar to UPB, though less defined.  Where I have difference with UPB is the in the role of violence in society. Specifically in progenitors of violence and how to deal with them.

Posted

This leads me to another idea along the same vein -- perhaps virtue would be doing aesthetically positive behaviors that are also personally negative? Things like giving to charity...this is, of course, assuming that the 7 categories are not entirely mutually exclusive.

Charitable giving certainly conforms to the conventional idea of virtue. Maybe too much so, in that it often gets attached to teh idea that profit is evil. What is better, coming up with an idea that is so good that people will pay for it, or coming up with an idea that sounds beneficial but has no business model to keep it going? Profit is a limited metric, but charity has no metric at all. If some of the more deluded personalities of history had had enough wealth to do large "charitable" works, they might have done serious harm. OTOH, sociopathic CEOs can make enormous profits by gaming the rules, so there's just no absolute guarantee. I'm rambling now.  

Honestly, I do try to listen to stef about UPB, but am not enthused.  UPB is so broadly defined that it is a synonym for "good".

My impression is that the consequences of UPB are not much more than/different from the NAP, the real contribution of UPB (if it does contribute) consists of the derivation/justification of the NAP, plus a way of shooting down bogus moral claims made by persons who want to manipulate you.
Posted

My impression is that the consequences of UPB are not much more than/different from the NAP, the real contribution of UPB (if it does contribute) consists of the derivation/justification of the NAP, plus a way of shooting down bogus moral claims made by persons who want to manipulate you.

"Non-aggression" is a bad set of words going into an acronym that represents and ideology where you have no problem kicking someone's ass if it's in self-defense. 

Posted

"Non-aggression" is a bad set of words going into an acronym that represents and ideology where you have no problem kicking someone's ass if it's in self-defense.

Yeah, language is a bitch. Feel free to use a better word.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.