Logical problems with UPB

[kenshikenji]

hello, everyone. ive come to philosophy via math, econ, and biology.  i have embraced objectivism and determinism independent of any reading of any rand books or reading anyone's particular reasoning.  i self label myself as an ego-utilitarian. i was looking at steph's UPB philosophy and i have several problems with it.  admittedly i reject (fail to accept) NAP so im skeptical to say the least about UPB. just some of the problems i have are

 

1. upb is the name of set of behaviors yet steph insists it cannot determine what is UPB only evaluate theories. yet you can arbitrarily focus any theory to classify a particular action as moral or immoral. if steph's claim is true, then it effectively should be able to evaluate the morality of particular actions.  
2. the proof of upb seems to try to use the structure of "proof by contradiction". but the proof isnt valid because of the definition of UPB as a normative classification of behavior and in his proof he assumes UPB is a positive set of moral actions, either in a "can" or an "is" sense. also there is nothing inherently contradictory about someone preferring murder since murder isnt dependent on what the victim thinks of the act.  also the act of preferring to be murdered and murdering are two different actions pivoting on the word behavior. this is a case of conflating them just because they pivot on a critical word. his two man room proof is convoluted form of proof by contradiction.
3. steph seems to be confused about "opposites".  i think he conflates two ideas in mathematics.  the idea of set complements, and additive inverses. rape without killing the victim is technically "not murder" and you cant have an "opposite" of an action fall in the opposite moral category unless youre working with a continuous quantitative measurement where classification of action is transposed onto the real number line.

these are just a few of the important criticisms i had, maybe someone has brought them up before but would like to discuss these and more criticisms i have. i hope to present my own philosophy of ego-utilitarianism as a more rationally consistent alternative.

[labmath2]

Yea. I just take upb to mean reciprocity. If you want to do something, assume everyone else is allowed to do it.

[bitcoin]

The proof of UPB is by consistency. Something cannot be universally preferable if it is logically inconsistent. I don't think you understand what universally preferable means. If an action is universally preferable, all parties involved must find it desirable. This cannot be the case though because murder involves a victim and people cannot desire to murder while also desire to remain alive while murdering.

[Wuzzums]

On your first point, the morality of UPB revolves around passivity therefore an action can be immoral if it violates UPB and if it does not violate UPB then it's just an action outside of the moral spectrum. If an action can be classified only as moral and immoral then whenever I don't do a moral action I'm automatically being immoral. This cannot be UPB because not all of us are capable of performing all actions each of us can do, it's the man in a coma test. UPB assumes a person is moral from the start therefore they can only become immoral through action. By defining morality as something active you immediately define a person as immoral from the start, it's the exact opposite, that's why UPB cannot tell you what to do to become moral.

 

Wanting to be murdered is a contradiction of definitions therefore murder cannot be UPB. The two men in a room test does not put forth two separate actions, it's the same action performed simultaneously by 2 parties. A victim cannot accept to be murdered otherwise they wouldn't be a victim in the first place. It's an "and" logical phrase, like "a=1 and a=2" (which makes no sense) not an "or", like "a=1 or a=2" (which makes complete sense).

 

On the last point, I'm afraid I'm at a loss because I'm not exactly familiar with the math terminology you're using so I might be understanding your point exactly. If you're saying that rape without murdering the victim is not murder, and not murder is moral, then therefore rape without murder falls within the purview of a moral act, then it's easily resolved by looking at the definition of rape. Rape does not imply murder, therefore the "without murder" bit can be, and must be, ignored.

[Kevin Beal]

1. If you could demonstrate how UPB could be used to arbitrarily prove any behavior is moral, then please do so. 

 

2. This seems to be multiple claims that don't seem to be connected to each other, as far as I can tell, so:

 

2a. One of the several proofs offered is the "you can't argue against UPB without assuming UPB". This is not a trivial thing. If your counter argument assumes the validity of UPB, then the you are the one saying that UPB is true, by implication. I am in no way obligated to answer your challenge, logically, because we agree, even if you also disagree.

 

2b. UPB has nothing whatever in any way to do with subjective preferences. The word "preferable" in UPB is used to describe how a moral theory satisfies the conditions of universality and logical consistency. A behavior cannot be true or false, but it can be preferable. That is, if you want a the moral theory informing an action to be UPB, it has to satisfies these conditions. It's the "preferable" you use when you say: "if you want to get to the library, it is preferable that you take Birch st north".

 

To analogize, UPB isn't evaluating the actual actions you take in driving to the library, but the argument about what you should do to get to the library.

 

3. The opposite of "not murder" (the moral good) must necessarily include in some capacity some level of murder. "Opposite" perfectly describes what he's talking about in the book. It's why no positive action can be said to be UPB (i.e. the coma test). It's opposite and not "negation" because there are 7 moral categories and the negation of "the good" is not necessarily evil, but aesthetic or neutral claims.

[Libertus]

admittedly i reject (fail to accept) NAP so im skeptical to say the least about UPB.

Can you name a situation in which one is justified in initiating force against a fellow human being who has been acting peacefully. Just the most obvious case, so we know where you're coming from.

[Omegahero09]

these are just a few of the important criticisms i had, maybe someone has brought them up before but would like to discuss these and more criticisms i have. i hope to present my own philosophy of ego-utilitarianism as a more rationally consistent alternative.

 

Kenshikenji I commend you on presenting your case to FDR!

 

Stef and Mike take debates and criticisms straight to the top of their call list, please feel free to call in and flex your brain with us!

[kenshikenji]

since im limited to 2 posts a day ill have to combine my answers into one post

 

Yea. I just take upb to mean reciprocity. If you want to do something, assume everyone else is allowed to do it.

 

my alternative to any moral principle is "self"-interest.  i contend this is the ONLY principle ANYTHING SHOULD have. with the intention of being brief, i will not go into the precise definition if have for "self" but emphasize that one's "self" is not bounded by the physical body.  reciprocation criteria are always a projection of ones self interest on to another's actions. it is a form of trade where BELIEF in mutual economic profit must be present to take place. it is the same reasoning behind valid contracts and consideration.

 

 

 

On your first point, the morality of UPB revolves around passivity therefore an action can be immoral if it violates UPB and if it does not violate UPB then it's just an action outside of the moral spectrum. If an action can be classified only as moral and immoral then whenever I don't do a moral action I'm automatically being immoral. This cannot be UPB because not all of us are capable of performing all actions each of us can do, it's the man in a coma test. UPB assumes a person is moral from the start therefore they can only become immoral through action. By defining morality as something active you immediately define a person as immoral from the start, it's the exact opposite, that's why UPB cannot tell you what to do to become moral.

there are no passive actions as it is a contradiction in terms.  any "not" action can be written as positive action. just as any "all" or universal claim can be written in a "none" claim.  if it is true that morality is attained being passive, then the only moral beings are the ones either dead or in a coma. i contend it is just an intentional rewording of NAP with minor additions that were invented to help bolster the weaknesses of NAP.  this was done from the very start of constructing UPB. i believe it was reverse engineered to prove NAP. if UPB cannot tell you what is moral, the steph has wasted a lot of time explaining on why the "opposite" of murder is moral.

 

 

 

Wanting to be murdered is a contradiction of definitions therefore murder cannot be UPB. The two men in a room test does not put forth two separate actions, it's the same action performed simultaneously by 2 parties. A victim cannot accept to be murdered otherwise they wouldn't be a victim in the first place. It's an "and" logical phrase, like "a=1 and a=2" (which makes no sense) not an "or", like "a=1 or a=2" (which makes complete sense).

This is the dubious trivial contradiction that steph relies on for the convergence of NAP and UPB. i say dubious because there is no obvious reference to the importance of what the victim desires in the definition of murder itself. you can prefer to be murdered and i can hate you enough to murder you and as long as you didnt hire me or ask me to do so the act is still considered murder. even if i were to suspend this belief, this contradiction is trivial in the sense that when you assume a person that is murdered does not prefer murder, then it is trivially false that they prefer murder. saying that a murderer prefers not murder is the same trivial contradiction.  this is the contradiction steph builds upon for his UPB analysis where he tries to present it as a proof by contradiction. but this is a proof that relies on the conflation of "shoulds","cans", and "does".

 

i have training in both logic and math so there is no reason to give an example of logic when you can define the logical rule instead. examples are to complement the rule, not to present the rule itself.  "and" propositions must have both premises true to be true and "or" props must have at least one true premise to be true. this is not a good analogy for what steph is trying to convince you of.  the contradiction here lies in the definition. an object/element cannot be in a set and its complement at the same time. by definition a set and its complement are mutually exclusive. in this case, it is the reliance that the definition of a "victim of murder" contains the  preference of "not murder" that is dubious.

 

 

 

On the last point, I'm afraid I'm at a loss because I'm not exactly familiar with the math terminology you're using so I might be understanding your point exactly. If you're saying that rape without murdering the victim is not murder, and not murder is moral, then therefore rape without murder falls within the purview of a moral act, then it's easily resolved by looking at the definition of rape. Rape does not imply murder, therefore the "without murder" bit can be, and must be, ignored.

i believe steph has conflated two "opposites". one of sets and their complements (a set and everything outside the set), and the other of additive inverses (the number you add to another number to obtain a sum of 0). all definitions represents a set of all things that fit the criteria. so "murder" is the name of a set of actions that fit the criteria. its complement "not murder" is anything that fails to fit ALL the criteria. rape without killing the victim is by definition "not murder" since killing is a criteria of murder. so on one hand rape is UPB and not UPB.  this is a contradiction deduced from steph's own analysis.

 

 

 

1. If you could demonstrate how UPB could be used to arbitrarily prove any behavior is moral, then please do so.

again, since UPB is said to evaluate theories, then i can arbitrarily create a theory to focus any specific set of actions. by transitivity UPB can evaluate any set of specific actions. since i claim UPB is NAP only reworded and bolstered, it can only show aggression is immoral.

 

 

 

2a. One of the several proofs offered is the "you can't argue against UPB without assuming UPB". This is not a trivial thing. If your counter argument assumes the validity of UPB, then the you are the one saying that UPB is true, by implication. I am in no way obligated to answer your challenge, logically, because we agree, even if you also disagree.

sorry to say but this is a fallacy. you can critique UPB from many aspects.  the only aspect that would fall victim to this contradiction is if you claim that there is no behavior that fits UPB. i am debating what is actually UPB. steph claims NAP is UPB, i claim "self" interested acts SHOULD be the ONLY criteria for preference which is in accordance with science, economics, and mathematics.  this is somewhat related to hoppe's self-ownership argument which is also fallacious. hoppe's argument actually says "you cannot argue that ALL people own themselves, without assuming you own yourself".  but the only burden upon the person arguing against self-ownership is to show that there is at least one person who doesnt or didnt own themselves, NOT to show that NO person ever owned themselves.  the negation of an all claim is a SOME claim NOT a NONE claim.

 

 

 

2b. UPB has nothing whatever in any way to do with subjective preferences. The word "preferable" in UPB is used to describe how a moral theory satisfies the conditions of universality and logical consistency. A behavior cannot be true or false, but it can be preferable. That is, if you want a the moral theory informing an action to be UPB, it has to satisfies these conditions. It's the "preferable" you use when you say: "if you want to get to the library, it is preferable that you take Birch st north".

I never claimed UPB had to do with subjective preferences.  i know UPB is SUPPOSED to be a NORMATIVE ethic and not a positive claim.  but you must understand ALL SHOULD'S  are derived from a well defined objective.  and i argue there is only one primary objective which is existence and "self" interest.  what steph is referring to with "preference" is the optimum solution given a well defined objective. its analogous to giving a system of linear equations.  if the system is underdetermined then you are free to choose from a set of multiple sets that satisfy the objective (to make all equations true). if the system is determined then the system has enough restriction on the objective to force the evaluator to the "preferred" solution, or in the case of UPB, action.

 

 

 

3. The opposite of "not murder" (the moral good) must necessarily include in some capacity some level of murder. "Opposite" perfectly describes what he's talking about in the book. It's why no positive action can be said to be UPB (i.e. the coma test). It's opposite and not "negation" because there are 7 moral categories and the negation of "the good" is not necessarily evil, but aesthetic or neutral claims.

if you believe "opposite", especially the way steph uses the term, is well defined then you must be on some magical plane of logic. he uses moral opposites in two distinct but mutually INCLUSIVE ways. additive inverse and set complements.  the 7 moral categories is a mapping of self interest on a numerical scale of economic profitability centered about 0 which represents indifference or in stephs terminology neutral.  again he claims "not murder" is the set complement of murder, yet he refers to its quantitative value to show that "not murder" is upb because it is the opposite (additive inverse) of "murder".

 

 

 

Can you name a situation in which one is justified in initiating force against a fellow human being who has been acting peacefully. Just the most obvious case, so we know where you're coming from.

i can do better and give you the general form. its moral to aggress when its in ones "self" interest. the necessary conditions would be a situation in which a zero sum game exists  (to operate at pareto efficiency) where the consequences play a significant role to my "self" interest.

 

i would aggress to save my own life or a loved one. again i can arbitrarily come up with senarios where the benefits outweigh the costs of aggression.  all i care is economic profitability when it comes to action as i should. if someone paid me a billion dollars to assault stephan i would do it, as i probably should. if i was on the titanic and i was with my child in the water and see another kid on a plank with room for only one, id probably pull that kid off the plank and give the plank to my kid. 

 

 

Kenshikenji I commend you on presenting your case to FDR!

 

Stef and Mike take debates and criticisms straight to the top of their call list, please feel free to call in and flex your brain with us!

ive been bumped twice already trying to debate steph on the subjective theory of value. i dont know how much longer i can take listening to people call in with their personal problems.

[Wuzzums]

there are no passive actions as it is a contradiction in terms.  any "not" action can be written as positive action. just as any "all" or universal claim can be written in a "none" claim.  if it is true that morality is attained being passive, then the only moral beings are the ones either dead or in a coma. i contend it is just an intentional rewording of NAP with minor additions that were invented to help bolster the weaknesses of NAP.  this was done from the very start of constructing UPB. i believe it was reverse engineered to prove NAP. if UPB cannot tell you what is moral, the steph has wasted a lot of time explaining on why the "opposite" of murder is moral.

 

 

You flat out ignored my whole point. I said the premise of UPB is that a passive person is moral, yet you still push forward the definition of morality as something you have to achieve. You're confusing YOUR definition of morality with the definition put forth in UPB. It's like me putting forth the proposition that "a+b=c" and you're argument against it is that "a+b=d".

 

 

there is no obvious reference to the importance of what the victim desires in the definition of murder itself.

 

This is a factually wrong statement. Your whole argument is invalid.

 

 

i believe steph has conflated two "opposites". one of sets and their complements (a set and everything outside the set), and the other of additive inverses (the number you add to another number to obtain a sum of 0). all definitions represents a set of all things that fit the criteria. so "murder" is the name of a set of actions that fit the criteria. its complement "not murder" is anything that fails to fit ALL the criteria. rape without killing the victim is by definition "not murder" since killing is a criteria of murder. so on one hand rape is UPB and not UPB.  this is a contradiction deduced from steph's own analysis.

 

You're not making any logical sense. Rape and murder are two different sets of actions. You can't mathematically say that "if a=/=b and a=/=c then b=c". How are you not getting this?

 

 

i have training in both logic and math so there is no reason to give an example of logic when you can define the logical rule instead. examples are to complement the rule, not to present the rule itself.  "and" propositions must have both premises true to be true and "or" props must have at least one true premise to be true. this is not a good analogy for what steph is trying to convince you of.  the contradiction here lies in the definition. an object/element cannot be in a set and its complement at the same time. by definition a set and its complement are mutually exclusive. in this case, it is the reliance that the definition of a "victim of murder" contains the  preference of "not murder" that is dubious.

 

My cat has almost 2 decades worth of training in spoken language yet I have never heard him say even a single word.

[Merrifield]

kenshikenji, if you have come to these forums to present a case for "ego-utilitarianism" feel free to do so.

[kenshikenji]

You flat out ignored my whole point. I said the premise of UPB is that a passive person is moral, yet you still push forward the definition of morality as something you have to achieve. You're confusing YOUR definition of morality with the definition put forth in UPB. It's like me putting forth the proposition that "a+b=c" and you're argument against it is that "a+b=d".

 

 

 

This is a factually wrong statement. Your whole argument is invalid.

 

 

 

You're not making any logical sense. Rape and murder are two different sets of actions. You can't mathematically say that "if a=/=b and a=/=c then b=c". How are you not getting this?

 

 

 

My cat has almost 2 decades worth of training in spoken language yet I have never heard him say even a single word.

1. i addressed it saying there is no such thing as passive action.

2 that is not an argument so i dont have to address this. i can just reflect the same statement to you.

3. logical sense? ive shown that since they are not in the same set of action, that rape necessarily lies in the complement of murder (given no killing).  therefore it is in the set called "not murder" which steph claims to be moral.  how are YOU not getting this? please go read rules of set theory, i am referring ot a very specific rule of a well respected mathematical discipline.  when you present irrelevant mathematical examples you make yourself look ignorant.  in math im saying if rape (with no killing) is mutually exclusive with murder then it is a subset of not murder. 

4.apparently you speak too much to your cat.

[SamuelS]

1. Correct, there is no such thing as passive action, its a contradiction. YOUR contradiction. To refrain from a set of actions is not the same as not acting at all.

 

No (proposed moral rule regarding a) positive action can be UPB. It fails the coma test. Would you accept a moral system that would judge an unconscious person as acting immorally in that moment?

 

2. Murder is, by definition, unwanted by the victim. It is not murder if the (otherwise) victim wants it. By definition murder cannot be universally preferable, it must be "unpreferred" by the person being murdered. If the person getting killed prefers it that's suicide or euthanasia or something but not murder.

 

3. You're still confused about the purpose of UPB. UPB is used to evaluate proposed moral rules, not actions, not actions at all.

 

That aside, all of the actions that are not murder are not necessarily moral and I think we agree here. I think it's helpful to look at it like a checklist -- not murdering, check, not assaulting, check, not stealing, check, not raping, check -- and if you've got everything checked off, your action may be moral. The set is "not moral", and murder is a part of that set, if anything in the " not moral" set is true, then "not moral == true"..of course, this assessment of actions is not at all what UPB is about.

 

4. I'm done feeding the troll