Suggestion of better communication of UPB

[robmcmullan]

Hi everyone, 

 

I was just on the call in show and wanted to offer a possible refinement for the communication of the UPB arguments. 

Unfortunately we got a bit sidetracked and I felt like we only got to the real guts of what I wanted to say close to the end and it we didn't get to spend much time on it. 

So I would like to also post it here and get some feedback on whether people think its a valid contribution. 

 

I used the murder example. 

Very often Stef has said that two men can't murder each other at the same time, or some variation of this. After listening to so much of his work, I understand his arguments, but I don't think this is the best way to communicate them.

I think it would be clearer and more accurate to say that a person cannot kill another person… and have both of those people call that singular action 'good', and have the concept of murder still be valid. If the person being killed calls that action 'good' then the concept of it being a murder vanishes. 

I would even go so far as saying that the judgement of the person being acted upon, at the moment they are being acted upon, is the smallest discreet criterion for whether the act exists as a 'murder' or not. 

The person doing the acting has already expressed their preference, because they are doing the acting. But at the time that the killing of the person being killed has been put into place, if the person being killed wishes that action to happen, it is not murder, but if they do not, it is murder. 

So the defining characteristic is the consent or lack of, of the person being killed. 

As I said in the call, I think it is potentially misleading to say that two people cannot murder each other, because as i said I think they can, or at least both have the goal to be mutually corrupt and try to kill the other person, whilst not being killed themselves. 

 

But what cannot happen, and have the concept of murder be sustained, is that one person kills another person, and that both people call that singular act 'good', or preferred. 

If the person being killed prefers that action, it is not murder. If they don't, it is murder, but the two people have opposite moral judgements of the same act, and therefore that act cannot be called universally preferable. 

So I guess the guts of what I was trying to say is that instead of talking about whether two people can murder each other at the same time… I would refine it to...


"One person cannot murder another person… and have both of those people call that action good".


I think a huge benefit with this way of saying it is that it shows that the consent of person being acted upon is necessarily binary, either the want that to happen or they don't. And so that each of these major actions must necessarily be universally preferred or not, that their categorisation must also be binary. 

The second is that is puts the emphasis one the moral judgement of the action. A lot of people get caught up with whether someone can murder someone else. Of course they can, but according to the theory, they cannot perform that action which is not preferred the person being acted upon, and still logically claim to be acting in universally preferred behaviour. Stef was right to point out the comparison to Maths… someone can get the wrong answer in Maths, but just because they failed to act in accordance with the theory, doesn't mean that Maths is invalid. 

And similarly, the way I would communicate murder above, puts the emphasis on whether both people would call it a preferred action. And they would not so it fails the theory. If they did… then the categorisation of murder vanishes. 

What does everyone think about this slightly different way of saying it? 
 

 

[SamuelS]

I find your post rather hard to follow, perhaps it's just that it's early. I would say -- murder isn't UPB because definitionally murder is not wanted by the victim and demonstrably is wanted by the perpetrator. Change murder to assisted suicide and preferences align, victims and perpetrators become collaborators.

[robmcmullan]

Sorry that I haven't communicated clearly. 

My main objection is not with the theory, but on many occasions Stef has tried to communicate the argument against murder by saying that two people in a room cannot both murder each other, or something along those lines. I don't think that's a very clear way to communicate it because it seems to put the emphasis on whether two people can die simultaneously or something like that. And I think its a shame, as its such an important thing to be putting out into the world, if it is not communicated in the most efficient way. 

How you summarised it above I think is much clearer, and that is what I was trying to say above. 

How ironic that I make a post about communicating an idea more clearly and succinctly… but my post is hard to follow and a bit rambly!

 

Sorry guys!

 

 

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

I agree and have no problem understanding it. You are right.

[robmcmullan]

Ok great! Thanks!

[Mike C.]

So what's the principle, here?

 

Is it:

If one of the involved parties finds the action (such as killing) as "bad" or "distasteful", or however they want to call the action, then the action cannot be deemed as "good" and therefore fails the UPB test?

 

Or is it:

If an action is deemed hurtful by one of the affected parties, then the action is "bad" or perhaps "not good"?

[robmcmullan]

Murder cannot be universally preferred behaviour, because by definition is not preferred by the person being killed?

or as most people use the words Good, Bad, Virtuous, Evil etc

 

The act of murdering, cannot be called 'The Good', because 'The Good' is a universal moral judgement, and murder by definition is not called 'good' by the person being acted upon?

 

[Guest Gee]

You might consider abstracting a little?

 

If murder is universally preferable then at all points in space and time a person must act so as to simultaneously murder and be murdered.

 

To murder one must be alive.

 

To be murdered is to die.

 

So if murder is UPB then one should act so as to both live and die at exactly the same time.

[SamuelS]

So what's the principle, here?

 

Is it:

If one of the involved parties finds the action (such as killing) as "bad" or "distasteful", or however they want to call the action, then the action cannot be deemed as "good" and therefore fails the UPB test?

 

Or is it:

If an action is deemed hurtful by one of the affected parties, then the action is "bad" or perhaps "not good"?

Neither of those. I can consent to your killing me while finding it distasteful and hurtful and it's not murder because I consent.

 

Here's the single sentence catch-all UPB-compliant moral rule I've come up w -- thou shall not act on the (person or) property of another without that other's consent.

 

So it's not a subjective "I like dying" thing, its an objective "I consent to my property being acted upon in this manner" thing.

[SamuelS]

Rob, I just listened to this call and wanted to share some thoughts before they escape me. Great call, btw, really got me thinking!

Regarding the "two men in a room" and murder confusion, Stef pointed out the distinction that UPB addresses moral theories rather than actions, and I think this is a great example of this common confusion people have about UPB and rather than avoiding it altogether I think it could be used to illustrate what UPB is and what it is not...because two men CAN murder one another, imagine a simultaneous Han Solo wherein each person shoots the other without any indication he's about to do it, they're both murderers, but that's not what UPB is about. In the case of murder the Universality is broken because to be murder the victim has to not want it, not because we can't all kill one another simultaneously and constantly.


As to why UPB has anything to do w/ ethics, that's one I haven't quite resolved, because that's certainly not how ethics have been used around me throughout my life. I think the notion of "hypocrisy" may help get there, but I don't know. I know plenty of people in the "might makes right" moral subjectivism camp (they'll even say that slavery was perfectly moral in 1800!) but I think if they were honest they'd have to respond "no" if you ever asked "is that true?"

I suppose one could say that the only consistent moral theories are those that comply w/ UPB, that the only way not to be a hypocrite is to support and conform to UPB. That the only arguments against it employ it.

But what of those "might makes right" types? Many seem perfectly alright with hypocrisy, openly mocking anybody that expects them to hold themselves to the same standards they expect of others. Do we just...leave them out of the conversation?
 

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Ok great! Thanks!

Disclaimer: I have a significantly superior ability to deal with variety in writing styles as a reader.

It's only a problem when multiple different meanings can come out of writing. Otherwise you can know what he means..

I see it as either blatant incompetency or ethno-centrism -> imposing ones writing standards and reading standards.

 

There is both a historic and intellectual reason to that ability of mine.

 

'Natural cognitive temperament' - I rely on critical logic (identifying the logical components of words) and theory   RATHER THAN common sense (which is demographic dependent) and (a set of bs slightly relating to emotional analysis, like the order in which the informaiton/ideas are presented). This makes me relatively unaffected by unprioritzed and disorganized writing. I am patient and willing too.

 

Historic - I am fluent in 3 languages (not a master in any of them), learned in a multicultural enviornement and dealt with a variety of evaluators.

[labmath2]

I have thought about this pro lem as well. I came out with an intetesting solution.

Murder 1 : victim does not prefet death.

Murder 2 : a friend or family of victim does not prefer victims death.

Murder 3 : at least one person in the community does not prefer the victims death

Killing : intentional act to end someone's life.

 

The proposition of UPB had to do with preferable- can be preffered by all parties involved. Based on my reading of UPB only murder 1 fails the UPB test, though an argument could be made for murder 2 and 3.

[SamuelS]

But it isn't murder at all if the victim wants it. Lovemaking doesn't become rape just because there's a jealous 3rd party.

[labmath2]

But it isn't murder at all if the victim wants it. Lovemaking doesn't become rape just because there's a jealous 3rd party.

Tell that to parents of 16 year olds.

 

On a serious note, the question that post was a work up to is when preferences matter and whose preferences matter? In some contries assisted suicide is banned and punishable under the law.

[Mike C.]

Here's the single sentence catch-all UPB-compliant moral rule I've come up w -- thou shall not act on the (person or) property of another without that other's consent.

 

Well with the caveats, right?

1) Unless the person is in danger and seems to not be aware (blind man crossing the path of a bus)

2) Unless you are defending your person or rightful property (a whole other topic about property right, but whatev)

3) Unless the person is incapable of giving consent but would have done so if able to. (CPR on a passed out person)

etc.

 

Right?

[SamuelS]

Tell that to parents of 16 year olds.

 

On a serious note, the question that post was a work up to is when preferences matter and whose preferences matter? In some contries assisted suicide is banned and punishable under the law.

what does law have to do w/ UPB?

 

 

Well with the caveats, right?

1) Unless the person is in danger and seems to not be aware (blind man crossing the path of a bus)

2) Unless you are defending your person or rightful property (a whole other topic about property right, but whatev)

3) Unless the person is incapable of giving consent but would have done so if able to. (CPR on a passed out person)

etc.

 

Right?

Well, no...I don't think it's that clear cut though. The question one might ask is "what's the harm" (in [not] acting). I'm not sure if this is still anything to do w/ UPB though, and this isn't my thread so I'm a bit leery of dragging it off topic...also, my definition above might be better expressed if "without that other's consent" is changed to "against that other's preference"

 

regarding the three scenarios, and remember there are not positive obligations (you have no duty to act):

1 & 3 - what's the harm? irrevocable. in this case, the harm of not acting is infinitely greater than the harm of acting. if you stop the man and ascertain that he does indeed wish to die, he can still do that. conversely, if you do not stop him, his death cannot be reversed.

 

2 - I have two ways to look at this, one the assaulter consented to your defense by initiating the attack (UPB) and the other is Kant's categorical imperative aka the golden rule (deontological.)

 

 

This idea of "what's the harm" can come into play a lot, I think, in our daily lives. For example, some people are really "huggy", instead of shaking your hand when they meet you, they'll give you a hug. If I meet one of these people, and they immediately try to hug me, I could take this to be an assault or attempted kidnapping and punch them in the nose and frankly I don't think there's a rational moralist out there that could argue I was wrong to do so. But, what's the harm? If I do punch her, at best I'm not going to make a lot of friends. If I don't punch her, I can still defend myself if the need arises.

[SamuelS]

I don't think I communicated very well above w the hugger. I think aggression (and thus defense) has something to do w your ability to avoid it...right? If so, that example should be more specific, like the person has wrapped their arms around you despite your protests or otherwise " unfriendly " reaction...not the best example but I hope it illustrates the idea.

 

Also, I'm not clear how UPB justifies defense, my assertion that the attacker is consenting has worked rhetorically but I don't know if that's the argument put forward in UPB and I should have said that above. To be honest I've not put much critical thought toward defense as I've taken it as a given for so long.

[bugzysegal]

You might consider abstracting a little?

 

If murder is universally preferable then at all points in space and time a person must act so as to simultaneously murder and be murdered.

 

To murder one must be alive.

 

To be murdered is to die.

 

So if murder is UPB then one should act so as to both live and die at exactly the same time.

Is this true? If it is moral to give back to the community, could one say that actions taken in preparation (like starting a business and ensuring that business is profitable so that those profits might be donated) for that moral act are indeed moral themselves?  What if the moral proposition is "One should murder in the future(or when you get around to it)"?  If Sherry thinks "I'm going to kill Lucy tomorrow, but after I do what I need to do today" she is still going to murder Lucy, and is abiding by a moral prescription to murder (at some point).

[SamuelS]

"at some point" also breaks universality, to be universal all rules would have an implicit "at all times"...Which is why any proscription doesn't work, because if you're sleeping you're probably not murdering or eating fish or beating your slaves or whatever else you're commanded to do. I can always not act in a given way, I cannot always act in a given way (especially if I'm unconscious.)

[bugzysegal]

"at some point" also breaks universality, to be universal all rules would have an implicit "at all times"...Which is why any proscription doesn't work, because if you're sleeping you're probably not murdering or eating fish or beating your slaves or whatever else you're commanded to do. I can always not act in a given way, I cannot always act in a given way (especially if I'm unconscious.)

Means can be justified by their ends. As long as it's all a part of the bigger murder plan, my sleeping and unconsciousness is totally moral. Imagine this scenario: Sherry and Lucy are without any moral inclinations. Then they are instructed that actions are good if and only if they are leading to the eventual murder of someone. Both of them go about their lives as per usual doing all sorts of things.  Each thing they do is in a causal chain of events, some essential to the murder and others trivial, that lead to the other's murder.  

I love how dissent is downvoted. Thanks folks.