Universality rule of ethics

[square4]

The universality rule of ethics says that moral propositions should apply universally. After analysis, I have come to the tentative conclusion that the universality rule can only function by using (hidden) assumptions about morality, that are contentious and require separate proof. And that the universality rule, on its own, has no power to invalidate moral theories. But if someone can show it to be otherwise, please do so.

 

Moral propositions should apply to all people all the time. If we propose the rule "Give to the poor", then this leads to a contradiction, because a man in coma cannot give anything. To solve this, we modify the rule: "Give to the poor if you can", and the contradiction is gone. All possible moral rules can similarly modified to be universal, by adding the required clauses and conditions.

 

A stronger version of the universality rule says that we should not make arbitrary distinctions between people, or places, or whatever other criteria it deems inappropriate in ethics. However, it is clear that morality has to make some distinctions: For example, swinging your fist is moral when you only hit air, but immoral if you hit an innocent person. In order for this universality rule to work, it is needed to know which aspects are ethically relevant, and which are irrelevant and should be ignored. But this is contentious, and requires separate proof.

 

Similarly, it is often argued that a behavior is immoral if it cannot be universalized. But there does not exist a neutral way of universalizing a behavior. For example, if someone who is poor steals from the rich, this can be universalized in two ways: 1) All poor people may steal from all rich people. 2) All people may steal from all people. Only the latter version creates an absurdity, because the stealing would cancel out each other. But to argue that the latter version is the correct way to universalize, is another way of saying that the difference between the situation of the poor and the rich is ethically irrelevant, which would probably be one of the main points of contention. Every human behavior has certain unique characteristics, and if deemed relevant, to universalize the behavior becomes meaningless, because no one will ever be in the exact same situation.

[Phuein]

Let's see if I can refute your criticisms of moral universality. 

 

It's no secret (or hidden) that universality requires a group to be applied on. Stefan had mentioned it before, and he argues in favor of "all potentially reasoning beings" - which is basically all mentally normal humans, including babies, and excluding literal psychopaths.

 

Personally, I think that killing trees for fun is wrong, even if trees can't be reasoned with (through verbal argument). For that, I insist that the correct group for morality is "all living beings", and that moral rules (murder, theft, threat...) should be better phrased, to accommodate this difference.

 

Notice that in order to define a group, well-defined properties must be described, which is again no secret, but just part of making an argument.

 

Also, your examples are good, but your approach to them is not.

 

To make a rule, "... if you can", is to create an impossible standard. Ability has nothing to do with morality, because it is never immediately a choice. And to insist that one is morally liable to train themselves to certain abilities, is once more a contradiction, for the person in a coma.

 

And, no one would say that, "punching is wrong", because we have cases where it is fine. However, instead of judging the "punch" itself, we know that our moral category is "harm to another", and so the argument is as follows: "To initiate harm to another is wrong."

[WasatchMan]

The universality rule of ethics says that moral propositions should apply universally. After analysis, I have come to the tentative conclusion that the universality rule can only function by using (hidden) assumptions about morality, that are contentious and require separate proof. And that the universality rule, on its own, has no power to invalidate moral theories. But if someone can show it to be otherwise, please do so.

 

UPB does provide it's premises in the section "Arguments and Universality":

 

If I choose to debate, I have implicitly accepted a wide variety of premises that are worth spending some time to unpack here.

 

Premise 1: We both exist

Premise 2: The senses have the capacity for accuracy

Premise 3: Language has the capacity for meaning

Premise 4: Correction requires universal preferences

Premise 5: An objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood

Premise 6: Truth us better than falsehood

Premise 7: Peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes

Premise 8: Individuals are responsible for their actions

 

UPB also contains 5 proofs under the section "UPB:  Five Proofs".  Here is the first one in syllogistic form:

 

1. The proposition is: the concept "universally preferable behavior" must be valid.

2. Arguing against the validity of universally preferable behavior demonstrated universally preferable behavior.

3. Therefore no argument against the validity of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.

[dsayers]

To solve this, we modify the rule: "Give to the poor if you can", and the contradiction is gone. All possible moral rules can similarly modified to be universal, by adding the required clauses and conditions.

 

The contradiction is still there. Whomever issues that edict is simultaneously accepting and rejecting property rights. The only clause/condition that is relevant is consent.

 

swinging your fist is moral when you only hit air

 

This is not necessarily true. Was the swinging of the fist an attempt to strike somebody? Was it an attempt to intimidate somebody? A behavior is only moral if it is binding upon somebody else AND doesn't violate their property rights. If you and I are sparring, then for you to swing at me and miss is moral because the behavior is binding upon me despite missing, but had my consent.

[square4]

To make a rule, "... if you can", is to create an impossible standard. Ability has nothing to do with morality, because it is never immediately a choice. And to insist that one is morally liable to train themselves to certain abilities, is once more a contradiction, for the person in a coma.

 

It is always possible to do what you can, by definition, so it is not impossible. I did not mention an obligation to acquire more ability.

 

UPB does provide it's premises in the section "Arguments and Universality":

 

How do these premises help to decide in which way to universalize, for example, in the example of stealing mentioned in my OP? Or consider the following example from the UPB book:

If, on the other hand, eating is moral, then it cannot be moral to eat a cabbage, and immoral to eat a fish, since that is a violation of universality, insofar as the same action – eating – is judged both good and bad. (p.87)

Clearly, fish and cabbage have differences, so why is it a violation of universality to distinguish between them? How does it follow from the premises?

 

The contradiction is still there. Whomever issues that edict is simultaneously accepting and rejecting property rights. The only clause/condition that is relevant is consent.

 

From the standpoint of a certain moral theory, other competing moral theories will always appear as making unwarranted distinctions. This works both ways, and therefore proves nothing. It could similarly be said that someone who has abundance and does not give to a beggar is simultaneously accepting and rejecting the importance of food for humans.

 

If the universality rule should only consider consent as relevant, this means that the question whether consent is indeed the only relevant thing, must be first established without the universality rule, to avoid circular reasoning. This was the point of my OP. Anyone sees a further objection to this point?

[dsayers]

It could similarly be said that someone who has abundance and does not give to a beggar is simultaneously accepting and rejecting the importance of food for humans.

 

That wouldn't be similar at all. Person A choosing to not give their property to person B doesn't say anything about the relationship that person B has with that property other than they don't own it. Who has ever denied that humans requires sustenance to survive?

 

If the universality rule should only consider consent as relevant, this means that the question whether consent is indeed the only relevant thing, must be first established without the universality rule, to avoid circular reasoning.

 

I think you're mincing concepts here also. 2+2=4 is an absolute claim. If you can find any scenario where 2+2!=4, then 2+2=4 is logically false. Is this what you mean by universailty rule? "For an absolute claim to be true it must be true absolutely" has nothing to do with consent. We don't need to consider consent to understand that a square triangle is false because something cannot have 3 sides and 4 sides simultaneously.

 

"Give to the poor if you can" is internally inconsistent because the person putting forth the proposition is accepting their own self-ownership while rejecting the self-ownership of the intended giver. When I said that consent is the only condition that matters, it was in the context of utilizing property, not checking for universality. It just so happens that your particular command of consideration dispenses with consent, which is how we know it violates property right and therefore also violates universality. That the two occur together in this specific example is linked, but incidental. I never suggested that in order for 2+2=4 to be true, we must consent to it.

[Phuein]

It is always possible to do what you can, by definition, so it is not impossible. I did not mention an obligation to acquire more ability.

 

There is no definition to this term, "can do", because it cannot be proven. It's impossible to prove that any person can do anything, at any time. You can insist that a person was "able", and that person will insist that they were "not able", and that's where it will end, objectively. Subjectively, you can argue for your opinion, but that will only face an endless mountain of justifiable excuses for inability: injury, sickness, shock, confusion, panic, and so on and so forth.

 

I gave the possible request for ability training, to refute the logical next question, about whether people have an obligation to train to do anything.