UPB, "preferable" is not equal to "can prefer"

[aleles]

Hey everyone,

 

We are currently working on translating UPB into Russian and have one conceptual question. We think that a lot of confusion comes from the word Preferable in the name. The way we translate it now may go down in history, so we want to be as accurate as possible. Despite the suffix "able", the word means "more desirable or suitable, better or best." and thus so many people think that UPB is actions that all people SHOULD (instead of CAN) prefer at any time in any place.

 

Would you agree that based on the definition of words UPB means universally best actions, where the actual meaning in the theory is actions that people can universally prefer? In other words, the problem is that BEST is not equal to CAN PREFER.

 

Thanks!

Alex

[J. D. Stembal]

This discussion was briefly touched upon in last Saturday's show. I cannot remember the exact content of the discussion, but I can give you my thoughts.

 

Preferable does not mean the same as preferred. Preferred implies that the preference has already been made for you. Preferable implies that the choice could happen for you in the future, which leaves the voluntary aspect of UPB more clear to the reader. If you call it Universally Preferred Behavior (or Universally Suitable Behavior), it comes across as an ethical edict that everyone must follow rather than a choice that all people choose to make for themselves.

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

I think of UPB as actions or behaviors that can be universally preferred without contradition.

[Culain]

Would you agree that based on the definition of words UPB means universally best actions

 

No. There really is no way to determine whether an action is best. UPB simply is a way for measuring the consistency of ethical/ moral propositions. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive. UPB does not tell you how to act, it only explains whether the action you performed can be preferred universally.

[aleles]

Thanks guys!

 

I think of UPB as actions or behaviors that can be universally preferred without contradition.

 

Correct. The problem is that the meaning of the word preferable is different from "can be preferred"

 

No. There really is no way to determine whether an action is best. UPB simply is a way for measuring the consistency of ethical/ moral propositions. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive. UPB does not tell you how to act, it only explains whether the action you performed can be preferred universally.

 

I meant that from the dictionary or language standpoint UPB means "universally best actions" and this is how people probably read it. I agree with you that UPB theory doesn't tell what to do. This is where we see the problem with the word "preferable" that gives an impression that people should do UPB actions.

[DCLugi]

Universally POSSIBLE Behavior? 

[Kaki]

I found this discussion helpful. The topic in question here was

"How would one know when to choose 'preferred' or 'preferable'?"

 

Common usage finds these words are used interchangeably, but there is a subtle difference. 

 

The suffix "-able" means capable or worthy of being acted on. It does not mean "has been acted on". 

 

So "preferable" means capable or worthy of being preferred. But it does not necessarily mean that someone has taken the action to prefer something.  If something is "preferred" (which is past tense), it means that someone has taken the action to prefer it. 

 

As an example, a housing developer may know from past experience that homes facing the waterfront have been preferred. (In the past, it has been the orientation of choice.) Knowing this would lead the developer to conclude that new homes built facing a waterfront would be preferable.

 

[aleles]

Universally POSSIBLE Behavior? 

 

That's an interesting version. We also considered these "Behavior That Can Be Universally Preferred" or "Possible Universal Behavioral Preference".

 

 

I found this discussion helpful. The topic in question here was

"How would one know when to choose 'preferred' or 'preferable'?"

 

That's a good point. We thought that the suffix "able" does what we need, but here's the definition of the English word "preferable" from Merriam-Webster: "having greater value or desirability: being preferred.". Do you think that the timing aspect gives the "possibility" we want? In other words, "preferable" does mean "better", but it doesn't indicate that it has been preferred or it should be preferred?

 

Let's take the original definition:

Universally Preferable Behavior is behavior that all people can prefer under all circumstances.

 

Let's strip universality for the sake of simplicity, then we get

Preferable Behavior is behavior that people can prefer.

 

Let's change the right side to passive:

Preferable Behavior is behavior that can be preferred.

 

Replace "preferable" with the synonym "better".

Better behavior is behavior that can be better.

 

Is this a correct simplification that leads to a contradiction or I made a mistake in the right side?

[aleles]

This discussion was briefly touched upon in last Saturday's show. I cannot remember the exact content of the discussion, but I can give you my thoughts.

 

Preferable does not mean the same as preferred. Preferred implies that the preference has already been made for you. Preferable implies that the choice could happen for you in the future, which leaves the voluntary aspect of UPB more clear to the reader. If you call it Universally Preferred Behavior (or Universally Suitable Behavior), it comes across as an ethical edict that everyone must follow rather than a choice that all people choose to make for themselves.

 

That's how I understand it. Do you think people understand this difference? Because dictionaries define both preferable and preferred as "more desirable or suitable",  "having greater value or desirability: being preferred" etc.

[PatrickC]

I recall a lot of discussion on the board around the topic of 'preferred' and 'preferable' around the time of first publishing UPB. Can't find the thread now at all. But as far as I recall Stef reached a suitable conclusion on the difference between them.

 

As to how helpful that that is in finding a suitable translation, is difficult tell.

 

Another way to resolve this perhaps, is to see whether you can contact any Russian/English linguistic university professors. They might be kind enough to give you a translation of the title at least.

[ribuck]

One of the reasons people find UPB so difficult to digest is that Stefan doesn't really use the word preferable in its dictionary meaning. It would be so much simpler if he named his theory Universalizable Behavior. The book needs to be translated to English before it can be translated to other languages.

[Gold]

 

 

We are currently working on translating UPB into Russian

 

Alex

 

My goodness this is so awesome, thanks for doing this, Alex.

 

Yes, i am totally with you, just about each and every person who see the title gets confused about the word "preferable". The word itself sort of has a connotation of personal, subjective preference, which adds to the confusion. Too bad this linguistic technicality is distracting people from even starting discussing the UPB principles themselves.

 

There were tons of great conversations about it in the chatroom after which some conclusions made sense to me:

 

1.The word preferable is not usually used to mean "able to be preferred".

 

2.Universalizeable (although it's not a real word!) would be a clearer term. (универсализируемый in Russian?)

[Kaki]

Let's take the original definition:

Universally Preferable Behavior is behavior that all people can prefer under all circumstances.

 

Let's strip universality for the sake of simplicity, then we get

Preferable Behavior is behavior that people can prefer.

 

Let's change the right side to passive:

Preferable Behavior is behavior that can be preferred.

 

Replace "preferable" with the synonym "better".

Better behavior is behavior that can be better.

 

Is this a correct simplification that leads to a contradiction or I made a mistake in the right side?

 

I don't know about the word "better" here.

 

As far as I have understood it, UBP describes: that what is objectively required to attain a certain goal, therefore should be preferred, but is not necessarily preferred by people.

 

(Please correct me if I got it wrong!)

 

 

Here is the relevant quote from UPB: 

 

Preferences

 

Now that we understand the nature of self-defeating arguments, we can turn to the question of preferences.

 

Preferences are central to any methodology claiming to define the truth-value of propositions. The scientific method, for instance, is largely defined by innate preferences for logical consistency and empirical verification. For science, the premise is: if you want to determine a valid truth about the behaviour of matter and energy, it is preferable to use the scientific method.

 

In this sense, “preferable” does not mean “sort of better,” but rather “required.” If you want to live, it is universally preferable that you refrain from eating a handful of arsenic. If you wish to determine valid truths about reality, it is universally preferable that your theories be both internally consistent and empirically verifiable. “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.

 

Similarly, if ethical theories can be at all valid, then they must at least be both internally and externally consistent. In other words, an ethical theory that contradicts itself cannot be valid – and an ethical theory that contradicts empirical evidence and near-universal preferences also cannot be valid.

 

Thus in ethics, just as in science, mathematics, engineering and all other disciplines that compare theories to reality, valid theories must be both logically consistent and empirically verifiable.

 

 

By the way, I agree, this is brilliant that you do the translation! Kudos!

Is there someone who has thought of or has already started translating it into German? I'd be interested to hear how one would translate "preferable" to German!

[WorBlux]

That's how I understand it. Do you think people understand this difference? Because dictionaries define both preferable and preferred as "more desirable or suitable",  "having greater value or desirability: being preferred" etc.

 

 

That's a good point. We thought that the suffix "able" does what we need, but here's the definition of the English word "preferable" from Merriam-Webster: "having greater value or desirability: being preferred.". Do you think that the timing aspect gives the "possibility" we want? In other words, "preferable" does mean "better", but it doesn't indicate that it has been preferred or it should be preferred?

 

 

One of the reasons people find UPB so difficult to digest is that Stefan doesn't really use the word preferable in its dictionary meaning. It would be so much simpler if he named his theory Universalizable Behavior. The book needs to be translated to English before it can be translated to other languages.

 

UPB can also be understood as behaviour which is to be preferred in all cases.

 

"Is to be" is a fairly useful construction to describe moral imperative without the confusion of should, can shall, and may e.g. "Good is to be done and pursued, and evil avoided"

 

 

 

 

[heymanslow]

One of the reasons people find UPB so difficult to digest is that Stefan doesn't really use the word preferable in its dictionary meaning. It would be so much simpler if he named his theory Universalizable Behavior. The book needs to be translated to English before it can be translated to other languages.

Ribuck, I think you are quite right regarding the confusing use of the word "preferable." At least in my case, I only understood that Stef perhaps wanted to mean "able to be preferred" by the word "preferable" the other day, after Alex explained it to me. And this was 4 years after I first read the UPB book. And since then I re-read the book at least twice, heard countless discussions of the theory by Stef and others, and translated a summary of UPB. Perhaps I'm just slow or it's the fact that English is my second language, but the fact is, "preferable" in the English language means "better, more desirable" - and the use of this word in the name of the theory to convey the meaning "able to be preferred" can be confusing, especially since Stef uses this word in the actual text of the book mostly to convey its dictionary meaning of "more desirable, better."

But thank you for the replies, everyone - Alex and I were confused as to what exactly the word "preferable" means in the name of the theory, and it looks like the meaning is "able to be preferred," which helps us a lot. Now we just need to find a good, concise Russian way to translate the name - which is probably beyond the scope of this thread. Ribuck, we were actually thinking about "универсализируемое поведение" ("universalizable behavior") - I like it quite a bit, except one can break their tongue saying it

[heymanslow]

By the way, we are currently working on a Russian-language website: dobroum.com, where the Russian summary of UPB will be published. If any Russian speakers reading this are interested in helping us with the project, please PM myself or Alex!

[jpahmad]

I think it's useful to think of UPB as "only that behavior that can me universally preferred without contradiction"

[aleles]

Thanks everyone and thanks Kaki for the quote from the book! I messaged Mike and he said that this question will be answered by the UPB God himself in a future video!

 

This topic raised another question. If we want to prove conceptual existence of UPB, then why do we need this argument "Arguing against UPB requires engaging in a debate..." that also looks so confusing to people? If we define UPB as actions that can be universally preferred, then all we need is to show one action that can be preferred by all people under all circumstances. For example, all people can prefer to not kill, therefore universalizable actions exist.

 

 

Preferences

 

Now that we understand the nature of self-defeating arguments, we can turn to the question of preferences.

 

Preferences are central to any methodology claiming to define the truth-value of propositions. The scientific method, for instance, is largely defined by innate preferences for logical consistency and empirical verification. For science, the premise is: if you want to determine a valid truth about the behaviour of matter and energy, it is preferable to use the scientific method.

 

In this sense, “preferable” does not mean “sort of better,” but rather “required.” If you want to live, it is universally preferable that you refrain from eating a handful of arsenic. If you wish to determine valid truths about reality, it is universally preferable that your theories be both internally consistent and empirically verifiable. “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.

 

Similarly, if ethical theories can be at all valid, then they must at least be both internally and externally consistent. In other words, an ethical theory that contradicts itself cannot be valid – and an ethical theory that contradicts empirical evidence and near-universal preferences also cannot be valid.

 

Thus in ethics, just as in science, mathematics, engineering and all other disciplines that compare theories to reality, valid theories must be both logically consistent and empirically verifiable.

[PatrickC]

For example, all people can prefer to not kill, therefore universalizable actions exist.

 

Not to nit pick too much here, but I think a better example would be, 'all people prefer not to be murdered'.

[aleles]

Not to nit pick too much here, but I think a better example would be, 'all people prefer not to be murdered'.

Patrick, preference "not to be murdered" is not our own action vs preference "not to murder", so we probably can't call it an action that we can prefer. What do you think?

[PatrickC]

Patrick, preference "not to be murdered" is not our own action vs preference "not to murder", so we probably can't call it an action that we can prefer. What do you think?

 

Right, but you see the obvious problem with trying to universalise, 'all people prefer not to kill'. Firstly killing doesn't always have to mean murder. But more importantly, some people do want to murder. What UPB does is say, ok so you want to murder, how do you feel about being murdered. At least that is how UPB would begin to test the moral theory of 'thou shalt not kill'.

[aleles]

Right, but you see the obvious problem with trying to universalise, 'all people prefer not to kill'. Firstly killing doesn't always have to mean murder. But more importantly, some people do want to murder. What UPB does is say, ok so you want to murder, how do you feel about being murdered. At least that is how UPB would test the moral theory of thou shalt not kill.

I can see that, I need to change "kill" to "murder". I wanted to know if it is sufficient to show one universalizable action to prove conceptual existence of UPB. Can we say, all people can prefer not to murder and therefore UPB exists?

[jpahmad]

I can see that, I need to change "kill" to "murder". I wanted to know if it is sufficient to show one universalizable action to prove conceptual existence of UPB. Can we say, all people can prefer not to murder and therefore UPB exists?

 

I'd say so.  I would put it this way though:  The preference not to murder can be universalized without contradiction.  Therefore, UPB is exists.

[PatrickC]

Can we say, all people can prefer not to murder and therefore UPB exists?

 

I'd say you were falling foul again of my second point I made earlier. Some people do wish to murder. However, it is universal that no one wishes to be murdered.

 

I'm a little late to this conversation and perhaps I'm missing some of the finer points you're attempting to understand. Personally I have always considered Stefan's first book, On Truth the Tyranny of Illusion to be a great introduction to understanding UPB better.

 

UPB is in need of some attention which Stefan has promised to do at some point. So I'm wondering whether translating On Truth might be a better place to start, until such time as Stefan gives UPB a thorough revision. Just a thought of course, not trying to dissuade you in this particularly noble endeavour. Just don't want you guys going round in circles with translating words or statements that may or may not change in future.

[Juan S. Galt]

Did someone say 'group call about UPB'? I'm in. Please ping me at [email protected] with more details or a link to RSVP, I'm seldom at forums.

EDIT: Wrong thread. 

[aleles]

Hey everyone, we want to get on a UPB group call this Saturday at 10am CST. I posted it on Gold+ forum, but everyone on this thread is welcome too. PM me.

 

Sorry for shifting the topic, maybe I need to create another thread for the proof of conceptual existence of UPB.

 

I'd say you were falling foul again of my second point I made earlier. Some people do wish to murder. However, it is universal that no one wishes to be murdered.

I feel we are talking about something else here. I'm concerned with the proof of conceptual existence of UPB. I'm using the definition for UPB from this video starting at 7:06

"UPB is actions that all people can prefer under all circumstances". So it seems to me that if we show one such universalizable action it will prove conceptual existence of UPB.

 

UPB is in need of some attention which Stefan has promised to do at some point. So I'm wondering whether translating On Truth might be a better place to start, until such time as Stefan gives UPB a thorough revision. Just a thought of course, not trying to dissuade you in this particularly noble endeavour. Just don't want you guys going round in circles with translating words or statements that may or may not change in future.

That's good news, do you know when Stef wants to revise UPB? We are not translating the full book yet, but rather creating a summary similar to this article http://www.economicsjunkie.com/universally-preferable-behaviour-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics/, but there are some uncertainties there. If you know a good summary we can use, that'd be great.

 

 

Kevin replied in another thread.

I really would not call myself a UPB-guru, but the way I tried to think about this question of "preferable" is as being analogous to the word "true".

 

"If you want to get to Oregon from California, it is preferable that you go north"

 

In a logical proposition, the conclusion is either true or untrue. But "preferable", I think, refers to the satisfying of certain conditions of satisfaction. If in your description, you are referring to the conclusion of an argument, that conclusion is either true or untrue. But if you are referring to the act itself inside the moral argument, that act itself cannot be said to be true or untrue, but it can satisfy certain conditions.

 

Is "not murder" universally preferable? Yes. Is it true? [Does not compute]

 

To my knowledge, "preferable" in this sense does not refer to anyone's actual preferences, although, they can be involved. For example, if you are welcoming death, I can't "murder" you, since "murder" by definition requires you to not consent to it. But "preferable" does not refer to your preference not to be killed, but rather to whether or not "murder" meets certain conditions of satisfaction.

 

Does that make sense?

 

I don't think there is a better word in the English language than "preferable" except "meeting certain conditions of satisfaction" which would be way too verbose. In Russian, there might be a better word, I don't know. I know literally no Russian, the beautiful sounding language that it is.

That makes sense. In the book, section "THE DISCIPLINE OF THEORETICAL ETHICS", it says "preferential behaviour can only be binding if the goal is desired." and "The “ought” is conditional upon the preference.". We can say that the use of the scientific method is UPB (without the notion of should) and we should follow it (it's required) if we want to obtain knowledge about reality. When we say "to not murder" is UPB, what would be the condition that will make it required?

 

Also in the "THE COMA TEST" and "AESTHETICALLY POSITIVE" sections it says that positive UPB and APAs should be performed all the time. We can "not murder" and "respect property rights" at every single moment. However, when we say "to be on time" is APA and "to eat" is UPB, do we actual mean "to be on time when you meet someone" and "to eat when you are hungry"? Otherwise, I don't think it's possible to be on time or to eat at every single moment, right?

[Kevin Beal]

That makes sense. In the book, section "THE DISCIPLINE OF THEORETICAL ETHICS", it says "preferential behaviour can only be binding if the goal is desired." and "The “ought” is conditional upon the preference.". We can say that the use of the scientific method is UPB (without the notion of should) and we should follow it (it's required) if we want to obtain knowledge about reality. When we say "to not murder" is UPB, what would be the condition that will make it required?

Again, just my limited understanding, but I think the condition is the dual standards of logical consistency and universality. "Not murder" is required in order to satisfy both those standards.

 

If we want to act morally (or aesthetically positive), it is required that our behavior be universally preferable.

 

Also in the "THE COMA TEST" and "AESTHETICALLY POSITIVE" sections it says that positive UPB and APAs should be performed all the time. We can "not murder" and "respect property rights" at every single moment. However, when we say "to be on time" is APA and "to eat" is UPB, do we actual mean "to be on time when you meet someone" and "to eat when you are hungry"? Otherwise, I don't think it's possible to be on time or to eat at every single moment, right?

If it's moral / immoral, it's enforceable using violence. (e.x. violence is justified in preventing murder). APA's can be performed at all times without contradiction, but that's not to say that they can be performed by all people. I think that's really the line between APA and morality, but I am a little fuzzy on APA, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

[PatrickC]

That's good news, do you know when Stef wants to revise UPB? We are not translating the full book yet, but rather creating a summary similar to this article http://www.economicsjunkie.com/universally-preferable-behaviour-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics/, but there are some uncertainties there. If you know a good summary we can use, that'd be great.

 

Well I've heard him mention it a couple of times in recent months. Of course Stefan has a lot of pressure on his time, so I guess he hasn't seen it as hugely important compared to other projects. It's hardly like anyone has adequately rebutted it yet to warrant an immediate revision, but he is aware of some of the issues as Michael hinted at in his recent correspondence with you.

 

No that is the best summary of UPB around. Actually Economics Junkie is a member of this board, although I haven't seen him post in a while. He would certainly be a great asset to your better understanding of UPB. I'm afraid I'm rather pushed on free time these days myself.

[aleles]

Kaki, please check your PM and skype, I need your email.

 

I emailed everyone who wanted to join the group call, please let me know if you didn't get the email.

 

Kevin, thanks for clarification, the conditional nature of preference is very important here. Here's how I summarized the answer to my question.

 

Preferable is a correct term here. The dictionary meaning of “preferable” is “better” or “best”. However, “better” and “best” are comparative terms and they require a condition, criteria or a goal that often can be implied. For example, a vehicle cannot be better or best in abstract, it can only be better in regards to price, quality, gas mileage etc or better to accommodate a big family, to compete in a drag race, transport furniture etc. Similarly “to not murder” is a universalizable action (no notion of “should”). When we add “preferable” to it we must specify a condition or goal, which I think is “if you want to be virtuous”, then “to not murder” becomes required. “If you want to be virtuous, you should not murder.” For example, if we change our goal to be evil, then “to not murder” is not preferable anymore to achieve evil, quite the opposite.

 

This leads to a more complete definition. UPB is behavior or actions that all people can prefer at all times and all places, and that all people should do if they want to be virtuous.

 

Can we shorten it to UPB is behavior or actions that all people should do at all times and all places if they want to be virtuous? Since "should" means that people should be able to do those actions and in particular be able to prefer them.