U Preferred B? Preference and Choice

[Will Torbald]

Universally Preferred Behavior?

Before the P stood for Preferable in UPB it was meant as Preferred. However, one argument against it was that it is possible for people to prefer to murder or to steal, aka murderers and thieves. This argument was accepted and thus it was revised.

Preference and Choice.

It is possible to choose B even when we prefer A for any reason. The argument that any choice is undeniable evidence of preference doesn't work in our everyday empirical experience. We know that even though we prefer vanilla, we eat chocolate sometimes. We know that even though you might prefer a certain person as a romantic partner, you could choose another one for various other reasons. What we prefer and what we end up ultimately choosing aren't always the same. If everything is a preference, then nothing can be not a preference- so how do you know preferences even exist without a not preference to compare it to?

A preference is the result of our internal measurement of values against a given set of choices, and that process necessitates a consistent inner logic for it to ever be a preference. If every day of the week the value for vanilla changes within you, this inconsistency cannot be used for a preference. You might not know whether tomorrow vanilla will be better or worse, thus you can't determine your preference without it staying as an internally consistent value.

Such values are determined through a logical process that analyses the needs and senses and compares all choices to the one that best satisfies the needs and pleases the senses. A vanilla ice cream might just fit the bill when you need lots of energy and a sweet taste. Maybe another ice cream is just as caloric, but the taste makes it so unpleasant that it's just not worth it. Thus preferences have internal logic and consistency to be preferences at all.

Ultimately, UPB is a system of logically consistent behaviors where a set of binding interactions that contradict each other are considered rejected as a universal standard, namely aggressive behaviors. The initiation of the use of force cannot be a logically consistent practice amongst individuals. UPB morality might as well be called Logically Consistent Behavior since only those interactions that are logically validated are allowed (even if the action itself might be illogical like making random noises or postmodern art - because they are not contradicting, just absurd).

If I were to argue that I prefer to murder, it would be to say in a higher level that I prefer logically inconsistent behavior. I would be saying that I have come to the logically consistent conclusion that I do not prefer to behave in logically consistent ways. Yes, it short circuits. Let me try it again. A person arguing that they prefer to behave in logically inconsistent ways is using a logically consistent method to arrive to a consistent preference of refusing to behave logically.

This would self implode the argument against U Preferred B, and so it would revert U Preferable B back to Universally Preferred Behavior. If it's correct, obviously.

What it could be said is that I choose to murder, not that I prefer to murder. Does that make sense, now? It only works if you accept a distinction between choice and preference. Some people might argue that all choices are preferences, no difference, but I can't accept that since I know that I choose against my preferences all the time in my life. And maybe you know it too. How many times did you think you would rather be doing something else than to read this while reading this post?  You just chose to read it, but I don't know if you really prefered to. How can you even prefer to read it when you didn't even know its contents before you even read it? You just read the title, and made a risk assesment and a choice based on it. A lot of you have skipped it, too. Not you, I hope.

I choose to murder. I don't prefer it. I can't prefer it. It's not an excuse. Aggression is a choice, not a damned ice cream flavor. That's not a murder confession, btw.
 

[Max Hartford]

If I understand correctly,according to you, preferences are what we would choose to do in an ideal world, whereas choices are what we choose to do in the necessarily limited world of reality? But in this case, it seems preferences are not all that relevant a phenomenon to consider. I might prefer to be immortal, have unlimited sex, and be able to shoot lightning bolts from my fingers, from these are not all that relevant when making my everyday choices.

[Will Torbald]

If I understand correctly,according to you, preferences are what we would choose to do in an ideal world, whereas choices are what we choose to do in the necessarily limited world of reality? But in this case, it seems preferences are not all that relevant a phenomenon to consider. I might prefer to be immortal, have unlimited sex, and be able to shoot lightning bolts from my fingers, from these are not all that relevant when making my everyday choices.

It is not necessary to create two worlds, a platonic and a real one. It's a matter of environment and opportunity within this one. In the ideal circumstances and opportunity (at the right time, with enough money, with enough confidence, at the right place) then your preferences can be acted out, but if the circumstances are unfortunate or simply even skewed by third party motivations then you might choose something against or different than your preference. While you might claim to have a preference for immortality and super powers this is more of a fantastic scenario in a platonic world. In a strict sense of this material and limited reality, philosophically only those preferences possible in this world are validly reasoned into whereas fantasy and delusions of grandeur are, well, that. They could however be useful pragmatically when making choices. Like choosing to diet and exercise because you prefer immortality, and living longer is closer to that. You could choose to become a prostitue because that is closer to unlimited sex. So even fantasies outside of logically consistent preferences inform choices - but even then your fantasies have a core of logic inside a cover of candy. It is preferable to me to live compared to be dead, therefore (fantastic leap) I prefer to be immortal \ It still contains internal logic by ascribing values and comparisons to different states, but it goes out of bounds in the conclusion (but in practice it would resolve in the practical health choices).

[Kevin Beal]

"Preferable" in Universally Preferable Behavior has nothing at all, in any capacity, to do with people's subjective preferences for one thing over another.

 

The act of "murder" includes an intention. That's why manslaughter and homicide are two different crimes even though the result is the same. When he talks about murder and how it's not murder if someone wants to be killed, he's not talking about the "P" in UPB, even though he's talking about a person's preference to be killed. That can be confusing, but it's only to define his terms – what action specifically is being evaluated.

 

"Preferable" is a condition of satisfaction. Behavior cannot be true, only propositions are true. Behavior is similarly preferable or not preferable. And because acts include intentions, we're not simply talking about the act of "pushing a knife into flesh", but rather something like murder, or surgery. You can think of "preferable" in the following sense:

 

"If you want to make it to school on time, it is preferable that you wake up with enough time to get ready and make the bus."

 

--------------

 

It's unclear to me whether or not you're using the word "universal" correctly here. To be clear, "universal" is just a synonym for "principle". It doesn't necessarily mean that it's a rule that has no exceptions.

 

This goes back to an old distinction made in philosophy between Particulars vs Universals. It's basically the difference between asking "what would you like for dinner?" and asking "what should we eat in order to stay healthy?". A universal is not meant to be a rule without any possible exceptions, anymore than we can say that kale is unhealthy just because some guy has an allergy to it and it worsens his health. It's a truth that can be extracted and applied in different scenarios.

 

Because we're talking about minds with free will and the capacity to think in universals, there are exceptions, such as with people who cannot exercise that free will (e.x. gun to their backs, hypnotized, etc) or with people who cannot think in universals (e.x. infants). UPB is logically binding on people in that way, similar to how universals of health are binding on people with the same digestive, endocrine, immune systems etc.

 

It just is true (i.e. binding) that murder is evil because of what we know about the act itself. The murder understands principles because he asserts his right to kill and denies that right to the person he kills. He doesn't want them to not kill him back like I want you to pull my finger. He lethally enforces it as something that "should" happen. UPB is binding on him because he has free will and understands universals while he contradicts himself.

 

At least, that's my understanding. Does that clarify?

 

For Gold+ members, I just wrote an article about what UPB really is here.

[Will Torbald]

"Preferable" in Universally Preferable Behavior has nothing at all, in any capacity, to do with people's subjective preferences for one thing over another.

 

The act of "murder" includes an intention. That's why manslaughter and homicide are two different crimes even though the result is the same. When he talks about murder and how it's not murder if someone wants to be killed, he's not talking about the "P" in UPB, even though he's talking about a person's preference to be killed. That can be confusing, but it's only to define his terms – what action specifically is being evaluated.

 

"Preferable" is a condition of satisfaction. Behavior cannot be true, only propositions are true. Behavior is similarly preferable or not preferable. And because acts include intentions, we're not simply talking about the act of "pushing a knife into flesh", but rather something like murder, or surgery. You can think of "preferable" in the following sense:

 

"If you want to make it to school on time, it is preferable that you wake up with enough time to get ready and make the bus."

 

 

--------------

It's unclear to me whether or not you're using the word "universal" correctly here. To be clear, "universal" is just a synonym for "principle". It doesn't necessarily mean that it's a rule that has no exceptions.

 

This goes back to an old distinction made in philosophy between Particulars vs Universals. It's basically the difference between asking "what would you like for dinner?" and asking "what should we eat in order to stay healthy?". A universal is not meant to be a rule without any possible exceptions, anymore than we can say that kale is unhealthy just because some guy has an allergy to it and it worsens his health. It's a truth that can be extracted and applied in different scenarios.

 

Because we're talking about minds with free will and the capacity to think in universals, there are exceptions, such as with people who cannot exercise that free will (e.x. gun to their backs, hypnotized, etc) or with people who cannot think in universals (e.x. infants). UPB is logically binding on people in that way, similar to how universals of health are binding on people with the same digestive, endocrine, immune systems etc.

 

It just is true (i.e. binding) that murder is evil because of what we know about the act itself. The murder understands principles because he asserts his right to kill and denies that right to the person he kills. He doesn't want them to not kill him back like I want you to pull my finger. He lethally enforces it as something that "should" happen. UPB is binding on him because he has free will and understands universals while he contradicts himself.

 

At least, that's my understanding. Does that clarify?

 

For Gold+ members, I just wrote an article about what UPB really is here.

No, it doesn't clarify. I am not making a statement against UPB itself nor its theories. That I am wise enough not to do. You did not address any of my arguments regarding the distinctions of choices and preferences, nor about the fundamental reason why it matters to have them separate. I don't know why you ignored it and went on to summarize the theory as if I didn't understand it because none of my arguments contradict it - they simply modify what UPB means as a whole since that is the important detail. If UPB is prefered rather than preferable then morality is a fundamental aspect of sentient reality for moral agents - not a made up thing to organize society out of convenience, practicality, or virtuous preference. U preferable B makes no persuasive arguments for it. U preferred B does make the case that to disagree with it would be an error. And you made no effort into replying about that.

 

In the context of U Preferable B, the NAP is the only universal principle that passes the tests and thought experiments. But with U Preferred B, the NAP is not only that, but to argue that you can just prefer to ignore it or break it would not pass for a valid argument since it is a rejection of logic while using logic. Preferences require logic to be preferences at all. A preference for not-logic is a self detonating argument, and U Preferred B would be valid over U Preferable B.

 

In this case the only U Preferred B would be the NAP, as to satisfy your demand for a universal principle and not a particular.

[Kevin Beal]

In the context of U Preferable B, the NAP is the only universal principle that passes the tests and thought experiments.

Because of statements like this, it appears to me that you don't actually understand UPB. I don't think it makes sense to improve on a theory you don't understand. I don't want you to skip over the part I described because then you will be operating from false premises. Specifically, you are using "preferable" incorrectly and missing the point entirely of why a moral theory would be binding on moral agents.

[Will Torbald]

Because of statements like this, it appears to me that you don't actually understand UPB. I don't think it makes sense to improve on a theory you don't understand. I don't want you to skip over the part I described because then you will be operating from false premises. Specifically, you are using "preferable" incorrectly and missing the point entirely of why a moral theory would be binding on moral agents.

 

I think this is a fair position. However, I maintaint that it is you who have misunderstood my initial argument.

 

 

The act of "murder" includes an intention. That's why manslaughter and homicide are two different crimes even though the result is the same. When he talks about murder and how it's not murder if someone wants to be killed, he's not talking about the "P" in UPB, even though he's talking about a person's preference to be killed. That can be confusing, but it's only to define his terms – what action specifically is being evaluated.

 

The misunderstanding is that you have defined the preferences of the victim, and not the preference of the murderer. That is what the argument from preferences is about. What the rebuttal of universally preferred behavior referred to wasn't the preference of the victim - it is easy to understand how the preference of the victim either makes a killing either a murder or a suicide. What is harder to understand is that if the murderer "prefers" to murder a victim, then it can't be said that "to murder" is not universally preferred behavior because someone does prefer to murder. That is the argument that you didn't address, and that I believe is the crux of why preferred was changed to preferable. If there is a mistake in the history of the theory, and there was another argument or reason in this distinction, then I would like to know it as well.

 

The difference between U Preferred and U Preferable is as significant as the difference between black coffee and decaf. One has punch, and the other doesn't.

 

 

"Preferable" is a condition of satisfaction. Behavior cannot be true, only propositions are true. Behavior is similarly preferable or not preferable.

 

and

 

 

"Preferable" in Universally Preferable Behavior has nothing at all, in any capacity, to do with people's subjective preferences for one thing over another.

 

Contradict each other. In one you are saying Preferable has nothing to do with the behavior people prefer, and then you say behavior can be preferable or not. Doesn't make sense.

 

UPB is ultimately about morality, and if you say "morality is preferable" you invoke the question "why should I prefer it?" and if you say "you can not prefer it if you want" then the argument that I am making comes into place by saying "you can't not prefer it without contradicting yourself".

[Kevin Beal]

Contradict each other. In one you are saying Preferable has nothing to do with the behavior people prefer, and then you say behavior can be preferable or not. Doesn't make sense.

 

UPB is ultimately about morality, and if you say "morality is preferable" you invoke the question "why should I prefer it?" and if you say "you can not prefer it if you want" then the argument that I am making comes into place by saying "you can't not prefer it without contradicting yourself".

If the two statement contradict each other, then you haven't shown in what way they contradict.

 

Behavior being preferable has nothing to do with subjectively preferring it over other options. It is preferable in that it is objectively required in order for the prescriptive proposition (e.x. "you should do X") to be a universal, rather than a particular. If it isn't objectively required in order to meet some standard, then it's like saying "you should go watch the new Val Kilmer movie–it's good", as opposed to saying "you shouldn't steal from people".

 

Why should you prefer it? That question has nothing to do with the P in UPB. At best, it only describes the B, in that you define what a certain action is (e.x. murder vs mercy killing).

 

Preferable and preferred just share the same root word. Preferable doesn't mean that it can be preferred. Instead you can think of it more like Universally Satisfying Behavior, or Universally Required Behavior. Using "satisfying" makes it sound pleasurable, and "required" makes it sound like everyone requires it. The english language lacks a better word than "preferable" in this situation.

 

I promise you that it's not "can be preferred". That is an honest mistake, but it's a mistake nonetheless.

 

I certainly could have misunderstood your argument. To be perfectly honest, I didn't take a whole lot of time to process it. I was busy thinking of a way to explain this distinction because of the false premise stuff I already talked about. You don't have to read or acknowledge anything I've written if you don't want to. I don't really care to take in the spirit of each thread I respond to and respond within a given context. Maybe I and others should do that more often, I don't know, but I've stopped expecting that in my own threads. I don't mean to frustrate you.

[Will Torbald]

If the two statement contradict each other, then you haven't shown in what way they contradict.

 

Behavior being preferable has nothing to do with subjectively preferring it over other options. It is preferable in that it is objectively required in order for the prescriptive proposition (e.x. "you should do X") to be a universal, rather than a particular. If it isn't objectively required in order to meet some standard, then it's like saying "you should go watch the new Val Kilmer movie–it's good", as opposed to saying "you shouldn't steal from people".

 

Why should you prefer it? That question has nothing to do with the P in UPB. At best, it only describes the B, in that you define what a certain action is (e.x. murder vs mercy killing).

 

Preferable and preferred just share the same root word. Preferable doesn't mean that it can be preferred. Instead you can think of it more like Universally Satisfying Behavior, or Universally Required Behavior. Using "satisfying" makes it sound pleasurable, and "required" makes it sound like everyone requires it. The english language lacks a better word than "preferable" in this situation.

 

I promise you that it's not "can be preferred". That is an honest mistake, but it's a mistake nonetheless.

 

I certainly could have misunderstood your argument. To be perfectly honest, I didn't take a whole lot of time to process it. I was busy thinking of a way to explain this distinction because of the false premise stuff I already talked about. You don't have to read or acknowledge anything I've written if you don't want to. I don't really care to take in the spirit of each thread I respond to and respond within a given context. Maybe I and others should do that more often, I don't know, but I've stopped expecting that in my own threads. I don't mean to frustrate you.

 

No, no no no. You are bending the language to suit your needs. You are saying the opposite of the truth. The word "preferable" literally means that it is possible to prefer it over something else. I don't know any world in which that word doesn't mean that. In every debate of UPB I've heard Stef say that it is preferable and not preferred because of the argument I am repealing. In every debate I've seen the guy opposing it always clashing with Stef when they ask why they should prefer said behavior if it's only an option, and the only thing Stef has to answer is "because UPB is true, you can't say it isn't" but that isn't a real answer, and you know it, and Stef knows it. It is only a standoff. It is true that UPB is valid, but it is not true that you should accept it just because it is valid. Chocolate and vanilla are valid ice cream flavors, but that doesn't make vanilla any more preferable to chocolate just because it's valid. What kind of argument is "I promise you" anyway? Where am I that I get these rebuttals?

 

Here, I am going to use your argument of sufficiency and necessity to prove that it should be preferred and not preferable:

 

-To build a bridge an engineer can prefer to use the laws of physics in its design

-An engineer might try to ignore physics like gravity but the bridge will fail

-The engineer can say that he "prefers" to use mystical arts instead of physics

-To have and make a preference there needs to be logical consistency and rational comparisons to ideal standards

-Magic is not a logical framework, therefore all "preferences" of magic are not rational, nor are they preferences, only "irrational choices"

-No logical argument can be made that justifies ignoring the laws of physics in order to make a bridge

-Thus using the laws of physics is not only preferable, but the only thing you can actually prefer thus making it "universally preferred" and any other "preference" for an alternative to physics is simply illogical-wrong-inconsistent-contradictory-fail

-Magic in this case isn't preferable to physics because physics is the only valid preference possible.

-Physics has infinite preferability to magic when it comes to engineering - therefore it is not just preferable, it's universally preferred - when it comes to making bridges.

 

Besides, if it's "required" it only applies to "if" cases. What's the "if" case in U Preferable B? The problem with an "if" case is that it would mean that UPB would only matter if you decide to engage in an "if". Therefore you could just avoid engaging that "if" and never deal with UPB and you would have no need for morality. But in U Preferred B there is no "if". There is no escape, no choice, no alternative preference. It is not only true, but inescapable. You can't unprefer it with reason, only unreason. And that's why U Preferred B, if it's true, is the only universal and secular theory of ethics that can't be avoided. UPB as it is can just be dismissed.

 

It is frustrating to make an argument and have it treated like I've never read it, or seen the debates, or thought about it. You know what you could do? You could have asked me before writing a very long redaction of what I already know and ignoring the topic, not once, but twice. No hard feelings at all though. I'm completely aware that this argument is against the current and against the inertia of what everyone expects here.

[Kevin Beal]

I'm referring to the chapter titled "Preferences". Here's a quotation straight from the book.
 

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.

You'll notice that I used the qualifier "subjective" with preferences in each of my replies to you. Preferable has nothing to do with subjective preferences. It is supposed to be treated as a shorthand for "objectively required".

 

I could respond to the other stuff you wrote, but you accused me of just making shit up to suit my immediate convenience. No, I've read the book a bunch of times and debated it dozens of times. People come to me to help them understand UPB. I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

 

You sir, are the one making shit up.

[Will Torbald]

I'm referring to the chapter titled "Preferences". Here's a quotation straight from the book.

 

You'll notice that I used the qualifier "subjective" with preferences in each of my replies to you. Preferable has nothing to do with subjective preferences. It is supposed to be treated as a shorthand for "objectively required".

 

I could respond to the other stuff you wrote, but you accused me of just making shit up to suit my immediate convenience. No, I've read the book a bunch of times and debated it dozens of times. People come to me to help them understand UPB. I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

 

You sir, are the one making shit up.

 

My contention is that the correct translation of "objectively required" is/ought to be "universally preferred" and that the correct use of "preferable" is correct in the term I used for "infinitely preferable". To say that physics is -infinitely preferable- to magic when building a bridge is to say that physics is -universally preferred- to magic, and that any argument against its universally accepted preference is irrational and invalid.

 

I did not say that you were making shit up. I said that you were bending preferable and preferred to suit your argument. I am separating them where they belong.

 

Now, are you going to actually address my argument instead of repeating yourself for the third time?

[Kevin Beal]

Now, are you going to actually address my argument instead of repeating yourself for the third time?

No. God no. You accused me of lying and I just proved that I didn't lie and you don't acknowledge that. Why would I ever debate with you? I would have to be a masochist.

[Will Torbald]

No. God no. You accused me of lying and I just proved that I didn't lie and you don't acknowledge that. Why would I ever debate with you? I would have to be a masochist.

And I gave you an explanation of what I meant. I did not make a blanket statement, I also made an argument. If that hurts you so bad, that's fine. I just lament that you have to default out of the conversation when I had just made my point quite clear. To me, and this just my subjective interpretation from my side, the pain (which you brought up when you used the word masochist) comes from having to read and think about the argument and not from being told that you lied when saying that preferable is not about being able to prefer something. I totally understand why it would hurt to be told that the theory you are an expert in would have a flaw and that is fine - but the pain is from resisting to simply rebut my argument. Anyway, thanks for your patience as I am sure it was tried in this discussion.

 

Just to clarify: I know that "universally preferable" is what you say doesn't mean that it is capable of being preferred - that would be just "preferable". My argument is that this compound term should be "universally preferred" as the correct translation of "objectively required" if we agree on the definition of preference versus choice that I made in the OP.

[Kevin Beal]

And

The word "and" is exactly what I mean.

 

I'm not saying you have to apologize or anything. I'm not trying to trap you. But if you accuse me of lying and don't accept proof to the contrary, then there wouldn't be any point in debating you.

 

You came on too strongly in each of your responses. It puts you in a position of having to admit that you were being defensive, which would require a whole lot of emotional maturity. I'm avoiding everything, being pedantic and obtuse, making shit up and all of these catty implications you keep making about me. This tells me everything I need to know about working with you to arrive at the truth.

 

It's been very unpleasant engaging with you, but thanks for the opportunity to make an important distinction about UPB that a lot of people get tripped up on.

[Will Torbald]

The word "and" is exactly what I mean.

 

I'm not saying you have to apologize or anything. I'm not trying to trap you. But if you accuse me of lying and don't accept proof to the contrary, then there wouldn't be any point in debating you.

 

You came on too strongly in each of your responses. It puts you in a position of having to admit that you were being defensive, which would require a whole lot of emotional maturity. I'm avoiding everything, being pedantic and obtuse, making shit up and all of these catty implications you keep making about me. This tells me everything I need to know about working with you to arrive at the truth.

 

It's been very unpleasant engaging with you, but thanks for the opportunity to make an important distinction about UPB that a lot of people get tripped up on.

The lie I accused you of making is saying that there is no difference in the terms preferable and preferred by themselves. There is nothing wrong with that accusation. If you misunderstood me, and thought that I meant 'universally preferable' that is a different mistake. Maybe I didn't explain myself well, or you misunderstood.

 

But I have had to endure your own misconduct from the beginning of your posts with:

 

1- Assuming I didn't understand UPB

2- Refusing to address the argument after I proved that I understood what objectively required meant

3- Your default out because you feel pain at the calling out of a lie

 

From my side it is you who have not taken the emotionally mature road from the first step.

 

I am completely willing to let this misunderstanding go as I think we both are competent enough to continue the actual argument without "but you saids and you saids". That's just a distraction.

[MysterionMuffles]

The misunderstanding is that you have defined the preferences of the victim, and not the preference of the murderer. That is what the argument from preferences is about. What the rebuttal of universally preferred behavior referred to wasn't the preference of the victim - it is easy to understand how the preference of the victim either makes a killing either a murder or a suicide. What is harder to understand is that if the murderer "prefers" to murder a victim, then it can't be said that "to murder" is not universally preferred behavior because someone does prefer to murder. That is the argument that you didn't address, and that I believe is the crux of why preferred was changed to preferable. If there is a mistake in the history of the theory, and there was another argument or reason in this distinction, then I would like to know it as well.

 

The murderer's preference to murder cannot be universal because then we'd all have to be murdering all the time in order to be moral. UPB applies to the victims because their preferences are universable to others at all times. The preference to not be stolen from, murdered, taped, or subjugated to fraud are always in place in order for NAP violators to infringe on that.