Definition of Morality/Ethics?

[LiberT]

Morality definition: principles that govern a person's or group's behavior and form of conduct.

^Yes or no? Is there a better way to define the term?

[Wuzzums]

If one is to follow that definition and there's a person that has the principle of "always wearing a hat" then it would mean that whenever he's not wearing a hat they are immoral.

 

I myself define morality by defining its opposite, evil.

Evil is the initiation of force.

The opposite of initiation of force is the non aggression principle (NAP).

Thus morality = NAP.

[Kevin Beal]

No. A cost-benefit involves reasoning using principles, and it governs people's and group's behavior and form of conduct. But a cost-benefit analysis is not morality. What it means to get what I want vs doing something for the sake of being good are often directly opposed.

 

In philosophy there is a distinction made between universals and particulars. The answer to the question "what should we eat for dinner tonight?" is going to be a particular. However, the question "what should we eat to be healthy?" involves a universal.

 

Universals are another name for principle. But the principle behind the question of good health is not a moral question. It does govern people's and group's behavior and form of conduct.

 

 

Universally Preferable Behavior

 

Universally Preferable Behavior (important free book by Stef) makes the case for a meta-ethical framework by the same name (UPB). It defines morality as behavior which is universally preferable and enforceable using violence, the opposite of which necessarily containing at least some degree of evil. The violence is justified in order to prevent evil. (It proposes several other categories as well).

 

The framework itself evaluates moral arguments, rather than behavior directly. Stabbing a guy in the throat is behavior, but it can be to kill him or to perform an emergency tracheotomy. "Stabbing a guy in the throat" is not what UPB is concerned with.

 

If we want someone to behave in a certain way, we can want that like I want you to pull my finger so I can let out a loud fart, or I can want it in a way which actually is binding upon other people to follow. The failure to do so being cause for some form of sanction or correction. UPB is concerned with the second type.

 

 

Behavior

 

Behavior, the B in UPB, does necessarily imply certain things by their very definitions, however. So, it's not as if there is behavior, and then there are people saying "you ought to make sweet sweet love to me or else you are a bad girlfriend" with nothing in between. Praxeology (for example) is an entire science from which other sciences are developed that is entirely to do with what human action implies and how to reason from that.

 

By making an argument, in that same act, you are necessarily asserting the value of truth over falsehood, even if your argument never refers to the importance of truth over falsehood. That much is necessarily implied by the act itself.

 

By attempting murder, you are asserting your own right to kill another person and denying that same right to them. There is an "ought" hidden within the act of attempted murder.

 

 

Universality

 

Universally, the U in UPB refers to principle, the "universal vs particular" distinction I made above.

 

When evaluating moral reasoning to see if it promotes universally preferable behavior, universality is a requirement. Nothing arbitrary like eating pizza for dinner can be used to justify it. The reasoning must be based on principle and as a direct consequence of that apply to both parties involved in the attempted murder. If it is right and just and good to murder Bob, but you deny Bob that same courtesy in return, then it's not a universal, and thus fails the test of UPB.

 

There is a lot more to it than just that, so I'd really recommend you read the whole book. You can bust it out in an afternoon and you will be glad you did.

 

Preferability

 

Preferable, the P in UPB, does not refer to the subjective preference you and I have for things which we desire and work in our favor. Preferable actually describes the satisfaction of a condition. Behavior isn't true or false. Truth describes the satisfaction of statements meeting the condition that they accurately describe what is real and true. Preferability describes the satisfaction of behaviors meeting the condition of achieving some intended effect.

 

In other words, if we want to get to the library, then it is preferable that we take Elm st. north.

 

Taking Elm st. north does (or doesn't) meet the condition of satisfaction (i.e. getting to the library). Whatever does get us there is preferable. We can say so in an objective way.

 

 

Conclusion

 

So, behavior which is preferable in a manner which is universal, passes the test of UPB. And behavior which passes that test (e.g. "thou shalt not murder") and whose opposite must contain in some way some level of evil (i.e. "murder") is what we call the good, or moral behavior.

 

Hope that helps!

[Mike C.]

Above, in the Preferability section, it says that UPB is not referring to preferences that are subjective.

 

 

Preferable, the P in UPB, does not refer to the subjective preference you and I have for things which we desire and work in our favor.

....

Preferability describes the satisfaction of behaviors meeting the condition of achieving some intended effect.

So, pertaining to ethics, how do we know what human's universally "intended effect" is? ie. To further the human race onward and in a way that maximizes happiness.

 

Some could say that that preference is (although widely shared) also subjective, as some people don't care much about the future of the human race or the majority of people's happiness. I don't know any of these people, but I bet they exist.

[Kevin Beal]

Above, in the Preferability section, it says that UPB is not referring to preferences that are subjective.

 

So, pertaining to ethics, how do we know what human's universally "intended effect" is? ie. To further the human race onward and in a way that maximizes happiness.

 

Some could say that that preference is (although widely shared) also subjective, as some people don't care much about the future of the human race or the majority of people's happiness. I don't know any of these people, but I bet they exist.

Good question! I probably should have included that in the original reply

 

Ethics, in order to be objective have to apply and be binding upon all people, by virtue of the logic used to justify it.

 

"Universally" translates into principled / objective, and "preferable" (in this context) translates into required. Universally preferable behavior then is behavior which is objectively required. Objectively required in order to be binding upon all people, past, present or future.

 

If I say that you ought to do something, not because it meets some immediate need of mine, but that you should do it on principle, I am saying that you doing that is binding on you and everyone else. What that act is, must be objectively required, which is to say it must be logically consistent, be a universal (not a particular / arbitrary).

 

Any reasoning I have which says that you ought to (in an objective way) debate me in a manner which is honest and toward the goal of achieving truth, but I'm allowed to make up the rules as I go along and lie if I need to to "win", then that's logically inconsistent. That kind of hypocrisy is the kind of irrationality that violates that objectively required standard.

 

Seeing that there is a logic to hypocrisy, and that it has certain logical consequences reveals the kind of implicit logical standards that can make some behavior objectively required or not, or if it meets that standard.

 

If someone comes at you with a chainsaw screaming at you that they are going to chop you up, then, logically, they are implicitly granting you the same courtesy in return: self defense. You are logically and morally justified in preventing yourself from getting chopped up, even if it requires that you maim or even kill the guy in order to stop it.

 

Understanding the objective requirements, the logically consistent and the logical consequences of the adherence or violation of these objective requirements is what UPB is all about. The primary domain that it's concerned with is a subset of behavior called "morality".

 

There is a table on page 46 that helps break down how to look at morality (from the UPB perspective) as analogous to physics and biology (i.e. how to understand it as a discipline).

 

NOTE All of what I'm saying is my amateur understanding of UPB. It's been a while since I read the book, and it's been historically difficult for me to fully grasp.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Morality definition: principles that govern a person's or group's behavior and form of conduct.

^Yes or no? Is there a better way to define the term?

Yes, principles determining the value of things

(wether negative or positive value)

[Mike C.]

@ Kevin Beal

I think you did a pretty good job summing up what UPB is. I also read the book about 2 months ago for the 1st time. Kinda confusing but I think I understood what the argument was. My question is this though:

 

You say UPB is to see what behaviors are "objectively required". I understand that part of the book, but I ask required for what  exactly? What is the goal? To avoid being a hypocrite with a double standard, Thus, bettering our society?

[LiberT]

Morality is universalizable NAP behavior.

 

It could be bad English, but at least i tried.

Universalizable (universalize-able) obviously means that the quality of it is such that universality can be applied to it.

 

So what do you think about this definition? Please correct this one if you see holes in it. Thank you.

[Mike C.]

LiberT, that's not a bad definition of UPB/morality. I like how short it is. Sadly it assumes the reader knows the definition of universality (not too hard to look up) and NAP (also can look up, although there are some disagreements about NAP definitions, especially regarding how to determine property rights).

 

But you didn't answer my main question in bold above your post. Why is UPB something everyone should do? What's the goal? What happens if you are immoral according to UPB?

[LiberT]

Why is UPB something everyone should do? What's the goal? What happens if you are immoral according to UPB?

 

Morality (UPB) stands the test of logic. It means it is in the fundamental structure of our Universe and how it functions in reality, whether we like it or not.

 

You go against the fundamental principles of the universe? fine, you end up doing a lot of damage to everybody and yourself, get sick shortly, and you end up miserable.

 

(Physics --> clear logic --> math --> morality is the way real world works. Not something that exist "only in your head", no. Only the transient language we are using to describe them are in our head.

 

Example: if humanity dies today, there will be nobody saying:

• 2+2=4
• Earth and Moon are 93,000,000 miles apart

But it will not change the fact that:

• 2+2=4
• Earth and Moon are 93,000,000 miles apart 

If aliens from Moon want to come to Earth they will have to fly 93,000,000 miles, and if they build a pyramid on Earth using sound 2+2=4 math, the pyramid will still stand strong as a product existing in beautiful harmony with fundamental principles this universe works.)

 

Imagine real life situation. You're on a date or a job interview. If you seriously tell your life and work partners that you rely on 2+1=5 math in your life, who would want to deal with you?

If you build a skyscraper or an airplane based on such science and use them, the result will be your death.

 

And you will miss opportunities to create real advances human life relies on, because math is needed for it. So you'll have no joy of creative accomplishment.

 

Morality to life and relationships is like math to advanced creative achievement. To have the happiness and joy of life long term you will need to have meaningful honest relationships, and for that ethics is a must.

 

Conclusion:

 

Morality / ethics are voluntary. Just like using math / science too is voluntary.

 

(Many useful things are voluntary, You are not obligated to use neither human language nor body language to quickly explain to a doctor where is it that you are bleeding.)

 

It keeps your life incredibly better and more advanced, but it is voluntary.

 

However, regardless if you choose to use them or not, the fact is that they do exist as fundamental principles this world operates. So you can go trolling around saying "2+1=5", "murder is nothing wrong and not immoral" and seemingly "nothing happens", but you will just be wrong!

[Mike C.]

You go against the fundamental principles of the universe? fine, you end up doing a lot of damage to everybody and yourself, get sick shortly, and you end up miserable.

 

...

 

 

...To have the happiness and joy of life long term you will need to have meaningful honest relationships, and for that ethics is a must.

 

I would like an explanation, not of what UPB is  (logical rules), but why I should use UPB? How exactly is it needed to "have the happiness and joy of life long term", as you say.

 

That's my question. I want a persuasive argument as to why and when I would use UPB (the logic) in morality.

 

So , with kids (or rational-open-minded people), once they see (because you show them, or explain...) the utility (usefulness) of a concept (like math or UPB) then they will start using it, if it leads to safety and happiness for them. So treat me like a rational-open-minded person, please, and make a persuasive appeal to my self-interests.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Mike C.

[LiberT]

Great! got it.

 

Glad we had this awesome opportunity to resolve it by discussing in the FDR chat,

figuring out how to avoid logical and cognitive fallacies;

and thank you so much for the link with vids from your Uni teaching how to construct a proper academic argument!

[Mike C.]

Yeah it's a good course. I am glad you are enjoying it!

 

 

I think all FDR-ers should check it out.

[bugzysegal]

Morality (UPB) stands the test of logic. It means it is a part of the fundamental structure of how our universe functions in reality, whether we like it or not.

 

You go against the fundamental principles of the universe? fine, you end up doing a lot of damage to everybody and yourself, get sick shortly, and you end up miserable.

 

(Physics --> clear logic --> math --> morality is the way real world works. Not something that exist "only in your head", no. Only the transient language we are using to describe them are in our head.

 

Example: if humanity dies today, there will be nobody saying:

• 2+2=4
• Earth and Moon are 93,000,000 miles apart

But it will not change the fact that:

• 2+2=4
• Earth and Moon are 93,000,000 miles apart 

If aliens from Moon want to come to Earth they will have to fly 93,000,000 miles, and if they build a pyramid on Earth using sound 2+2=4 math, the pyramid will still stand strong as a product existing in beautiful harmony with fundamental principles this universe works.)

 

Imagine real life situation. You're on a date or a job interview. If you seriously tell your life and work partners that you rely on 2+1=5 math in your life, who would want to deal with you?

If you build a skyscraper or an airplane based on such science and use them, the result will be your death.

 

And you will miss opportunities to create real advances human life relies on, because math is needed for it. So you'll have no joy of creative accomplishment.

 

Morality to life and relationships is like math to advanced creative achievement. To have the happiness and joy of life long term you will need to have meaningful honest relationships, and for that ethics is a must.

 

Conclusion:

 

Morality / ethics are voluntary. Just like using math / science too is voluntary.

 

(Many useful things are voluntary, You are not obligated to use neither human language nor body language to quickly explain to a doctor where is it that you are bleeding.)

 

It keeps your life incredibly better and more advanced, but it is voluntary.

 

However, regardless if you choose to use them or not, the fact is that they do exist as fundamental principles this world operates. So you can go trolling around saying "2+1=5", "murder is nothing wrong and not immoral" and seemingly "nothing happens", but you will just be wrong!

Ridiculous. People behave in manners that you would call immoral all the time. As a result, they are unhappy?  Am I unhappy while spending the money I stole from you? Of course not, I bought a jet ski and jet skis are great! If I never get caught I'll be further thrilled that I got away with it. Are dictators and despots never happy as a result of their actions? Do they never live long happy lives?

 

"It means it is a fundamental structure of how our universe functions in reality whether we like it or not"

Aside from nearly being unintelligible, you might want to pause before making claims about the objective nature of reality/morality.  Notice that even Stefan bases his arguments for UPB on pragmatic considerations rather than physical laws. 

[LiberT]

lol You just spewed such a mix of delusions, assumptions, strawmaning, ad hominems  and empty but insulting adjectives that i don't even know how can all that mess be addressed 

 

No, Stefan does NOT make his core UPB argument on consequential "pragmatic considerations"  but on logic and principle, which is important. Logic is indeed in the structure of our universe, an objective physical reality outside ourselves and our subjective feelings.

 

If you research detailed lives of all those tyrants closely you will begin seeing the misery.

 

"It means it is in the fundamental structure of our Universe and how it functions in reality, whether we like it or not."  <-- thanks! I noticed the grammar and corrected it! So, which part of it do you not understand exactly?

 

I am warning you I will not answer any delusions like "there is no such thing as objective reality outside my head" as i do no time for trolls. If you do not see any reality independent of you completely, outside your head, then you are "debating" it all with yourself in your head only anyway.

[Mike C.]

Notice that even Stefan bases his arguments for UPB on pragmatic considerations rather than physical laws. 

 

Yeah Stef does. Like, he says that IF you want to build a more fair society, THEN apply and spread the practice of UPB to others.

 

Or something like that. A pragmatic argument, indeed.

[Des]

required for what  exactly?

Required for it to make sense that I agree to do no evil to other people, in exchange for their agreement to do no evil to me.

Why do I want people to do no evil to me?

So that I can survive.

What is evil?

Whatever optional choices of others could kill me in a single blow (murder), or in combined blows (assaults and thefts).

Survival is a preference, it just widely shared, and I can argue that those without that preference can be disregarded for the purpose of defining evil.

Notice that even Stefan bases his arguments for UPB on pragmatic considerations rather than physical laws. 

Yes, the consideration that people prefer being alive.

[bugzysegal]

Required for it to make sense that I agree to do no evil to other people, in exchange for their agreement to do no evil to me.

Why do I want people to do no evil to me?

So that I can survive.

What is evil?

Whatever optional choices of others could kill me in a single blow (murder), or in combined blows (assaults and thefts).

Survival is a preference, it just widely shared, and I can argue that those without that preference can be disregarded for the purpose of defining evil.

 

Yes, the consideration that people prefer being alive.

You say yes, LiberT says no. Explain.

[Des]

You say yes, LiberT says no. Explain.

... pragmatists consider thought an instrument or tool for prediction, ...

I did not look that up until now, but in one of my videos on my channel, I point out that the mind evolved for prediction, and that prediction is the capability of the mind.

 

"My probability of death will be higher if someone attempts to murder me", is a prediction.

"My probability of death will be higher if 100 people steal my stuff on 100 consecutive days" is a prediction.

"My probability of death will be lower if, in exchange for my not aggressing against them, others don't aggress against me" is a prediction.

 

So, I get the NAP by predictions, which can be considered to be a pragmatic approach, by the explanation in the link above.

UPB can be viewed as predictive - if the prediction that : "for some time to come, most people will prefer to stay alive" is incorrect, the whole thing falls down.

 

Minds predict. Do it with best effort.