How does UPB Work?

[vforvoluntary]

Hey guys, I'm a libertarian but I'm new to the UPB theory. I am beginning to read Stef's book on it. Can someone give me a brief description of it? Please include the justifications for each of it's claims as it is suppose to be rationally based on objective reality. One thing I don't understand is the justification for why the UPB ethics applies to everyone. I've never heard one given. What stops someone from claiming another class to be inferior beings? What is the justification for the self-ownership of each individual?

[Will Torbald]

If you want to claim that humans can be divided in two opposing moral categories you have to provide evidence of this distinction. It's not about saying that some people are better at basketball or math than others. It's about "why would it be right to steal for some people while wrong for others?"

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

1. Reality is objective and consistent. 2. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality. 3. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.” 4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.” 5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.” 6. “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating. 7. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable. 8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). 9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification. 10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.” 11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence. 12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

 

 

It applies to everyone because it's universal. Nothing stops someone form claiming anything they want. Unless the person can demonstrate this other group is inferior in some way that exempts them from the moral rules that bind everyone else then it's just a claim. Who cares?

[dsayers]

What is the justification for the self-ownership of each individual?

We have reason, which means we can conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences.

 

A person in a seizure hasn't assaulted you if their arm strikes you, because they weren't in control of their body. A doctor in the 1500s is not evil for not prescribing antibiotics, because he didn't know about them. However, if somebody knows the consequences and engages in a behavior, they are responsible for that behavior.

 

Does this help to explain that?

[Kevin Beal]

Hey guys, I'm a libertarian but I'm new to the UPB theory. I am beginning to read Stef's book on it. Can someone give me a brief description of it? Please include the justifications for each of it's claims as it is suppose to be rationally based on objective reality. One thing I don't understand is the justification for why the UPB ethics applies to everyone. I've never heard one given. What stops someone from claiming another class to be inferior beings? What is the justification for the self-ownership of each individual?

Theoretically, it could be divided up, like if one group had no control over their actions or no consciousness, or something like that. The problem is that if a distinction is made, it can't be arbitrary. Obviously a moral rule that applies to right handed people should apply to left handed people.

 

If someone applies a moral rule to another person's behavior, they have to understand that rule in order to do that, and people who understand moral rules are bound by those rules (especially if they are willing to hold others to it). A murderer, for example, has to simultaneously respect and reject the Non-Aggression Principle, because he has to deny the victim the right he grants himself.

 

These aren't the terms Stef would describe it in, but some definitions are necessary.

 

The term "universal" in Universally Preferable Behavior describes a classical distinction made in philosophy between universals and particulars ("universal" being basically synonymous with "principle"). It's the difference between "what should we eat for dinner tonite?" and "what do we need to eat in order to be healthy?". The first is a particular and the second is a universal because it applies as a rule. "Universal" does not mean "without exceptions" in this sense, but if there are exceptions it has to be meaningful. What's a healthy diet for me may be different for you than me, but it isn't different because your name isn't "Kevin".

 

The term "preferable" is UPB actually describes a condition of satisfaction. An action cannot be true or false. A desire cannot be true or false, but it can be satisfied or frustrated, and whether or not it is satisfied is not entirely subjective. Behavior that is UPB is meeting particular conditions of satisfaction: logical consistency and universality. When behavior meets these conditions of satisfaction, it is "preferable", as in "if you want to go to the library, it is preferable that you go north on 6th St.". Preferability is not the same as a subjective preference, but intention is important.

 

The term "behavior" in UPB is more than objects positioned in space and time. It also describes intentions. In fact, our language itself is syntactically structured based on whether or not verbs involve intentions. It's also why manslaughter and murder are separate crimes. They both result in someone's death, but the intentions of the behavior were different. Intentions are mental states that have thought content. That thought content can be logically (in)consistent.

 

Hopefully that clarifies!

[shirgall]

Obviously a moral rule that applies to right handed people should apply to left handed people.

 

That sounds pretty sinister. How gauche to point it out.

 

(Left-handed people have been on the bad end of language for a long time.)