Other philosophers that subscribe to UPB?

[vforvoluntary]

Hey guys, I've been studying UPB recently and am now finally beginning to really understand it. It makes a lot of sense although I still do have some minor reservations. Although the logic is sound I will still do more research to make sure there are no obvious holes in it. Any ethical theory of course has to overcome the mental gymnastics of ethical relativists and subjectivists. I have been a libertarian for a long time but have recently been looking for strong ethical frameworks to explain it. My question is are there other philosophers that have picked up on UPB and subscribe to it? I understand that it is a relatively approach to libertarian ethics but I was wondering if anyone else has come to adopt it.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

If there were obvious holes in it I think by definition you would have noticed them. I empathize with the reservation to embrace a new argument, but when you say the logic is sound, but you don't discount the possibility that there could be obvious logical flaws, then I'm not sure you're being fair to the theory.

 

I disagree that true theories have to overcome anything. It is not a challenge of a valid theory to propose an invalid theory. 2+2=4 is either true or false, but it doesn't have to overcome the fact that some people don't perform math correctly. It is a challenge for society, but it is not a challenge for the theory that people propose invalid arguments against it.

 

I'm sure you will find philosophers who have adopted UPB, but you won't see them teaching at state funded universities for obvious reasons. Either way, what does it really matter who publicly has stated they believe UPB is true? Ethics is not a popularity contest.

 

If what you are interested in is even more supporting reasoning I would recommend the more recent podcasts on UPB, or checking out discussions on the forum that pop up all the time. There is a lot to dive into here , probably more than is worth the time.

 

Sorry I couldn't directly answer your question I just wanted to point out it may not be as important as you think if you already acknowledge the logic is sound (for the most part).

 

I hope you can form a critique if you continue to have any reservations at all, since it is essential we revise and reform UPB and I don't think anybody here is opposed to that (not that you said they were).

[vforvoluntary]

I wasn't stating that because other philosopher are studying or not studying UPB this makes the theory either valid or invalid. I was just wondering out of curiosity if anyone knew any specific philosophers that were into UPB so I could look into them. I also like to hear different people's approaches to ethical systems. Don't get me wrong I find the essence of the claims made in UPB to be correct. It is however, wise to go over arguments again to make sure you have not made an error when you are first accepting a new theory. Results should be reproducible in any calculation. Just like when you are conducting a scientific experiment, you should test your theory repeatedly in order to be confident that it is correct. The human mind is imperfect. I would love to play devil's advocate in the future if that's what your asking. I definitely agree that it is important to revise a theory when appropriate.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I unfortunately don't know of any other philosophers that accept UPB as valid (unless you consider some board members as philosophers)

 

Sorry I can't help in that regard, but it certainly would be interesting if other popular philosophers or anarchists have accepted UPB.

[Will Torbald]

If you want to confirm or debunk what you understand about UPB I suggest you look for the arguments other people have made against it rather than in favor of it. There's lots of debunk videos on youtube and articles in blogs. When you start reading them or watching them, and you see how wrong the rebuttals are - or how right they possibly are, you will come to a higher level of confidence in either side. I have never seen anyone arguing in favor of it outside of here, and every philosophy board I've seen has nothing but contempt for it, and plain mockery. It worries me personally, which is why I also continue to reason for and against it. My latest argument is that it is correct in most areas except that it should be preferred (like it was originally) rather than preferable.

[Lykourgos]

Yep, I agree with Will and others, there's almost nothing but contempt for the UPB outside this forum. I myself hold it with contempt, too, but I decided to register and see what people here had to say about moral issues. You can check out the thread if it interests you, and feel free to join in, but nobody was really able to give a coherent account of objective morality or the UPB: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46127-non-aggression-principle/

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I think you're both incorrect. The fact is most people who consider themselves interested in philosophy aren't even going to be familiar with UPB, not even by name. If they are familiar with the name, then it's still unlikely they have read the book. And if they have read the book, it's still unlikely they have comprehended the arguments if they have not spent time considering similar theories before. A student who has only taken mainstream ethics courses and has been introduced only to utilitarianism and the categorical imperative is going to have a harder time grasping UPB than someone who is familiar with something like Hoppe's argumentation ethics, in my opinion.

 

So when you both say outside this forum there is plain mockery for UPB, do you actually mean UPB, or strawmen of UPB? This is subjective because I do not claim to fully comprehend UPB (though I accept it as true because I cannot refute it), but it's not clear to me either of you understand UPB yet to say who is mocking it and who actually understands it.

 

Kevin Beal, WasatchaMan, and Dsayers are some of the most knowledgeable members on this board when it comes to UPB in my experience so you may want to check them out.

[Lykourgos]

Well, there's no council that approves true accounts of the UPB against strawman accounts. I don't think it's fair to conclude that people misunderstand the UPB, though. It's more an issue of the UPB being fundamentally flawed; in a sense, you cannot understand something that is incorrect. You would just recognise the errors in the reasoning.

 

The text tells the reader that it will elucidate the true nature of morality, but it never manages to get off the ground. People on this very forum don't expend much effort trying to defend the UPB, so you can hardly fault outsiders who conclude that it is a deeply flawed and incoherent text.

[Will Torbald]

I think you're both incorrect. The fact is most people who consider themselves interested in philosophy aren't even going to be familiar with UPB, not even by name. If they are familiar with the name, then it's still unlikely they have read the book. And if they have read the book, it's still unlikely they have comprehended the arguments if they have not spent time considering similar theories before. A student who has only taken mainstream ethics courses and has been introduced only to utilitarianism and the categorical imperative is going to have a harder time grasping UPB than someone who is familiar with something like Hoppe's argumentation ethics, in my opinion.

 

So when you both say outside this forum there is plain mockery for UPB, do you actually mean UPB, or strawmen of UPB? This is subjective because I do not claim to fully comprehend UPB (though I accept it as true because I cannot refute it), but it's not clear to me either of you understand UPB yet to say who is mocking it and who actually understands it.

 

Kevin Beal, WasatchaMan, and Dsayers are some of the most knowledgeable members on this board when it comes to UPB in my experience so you may want to check them out.

 

I know Stef has written rebuttals to this, but does this sound like an amateur student who hasn't studied philosophy? https://mises.org/library/molyneux-problem

[vforvoluntary]

Yeah, I've read that article. What amazes me is that there are many libertarians and anarcho-capitalists who not only disagree with but hate the theory of UPB. Maybe it's because they have alternative theories or beliefs that contradict it or because they don't want it to come into conflict with other libertarian theories.

[Guest Gee]

The academics will never accept UPB because they would have to accept the immorality of their position.

 

More generally UPB will be opposed at every turn as it does not allow for the granting of moral exceptions.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

And the academics indoctrinate millions of young minds ever day to prime them against universal morality. So there is a lot of unlearning one has to do to be in a position to judge UPB, which is why it is no surprise that people would rather mock it and put forward straw men than refute it.

[Lykourgos]

That's no more productive than saying "the fanboys will never give up the UPB, because then they would admit their feelings lack moral authority and justification." Arguments about the non-aggression principal and property rights can be considered a flawed moral power play.

[Guest Gee]

That's no more productive than saying "the fanboys will never give up the UPB, because then they would admit their feelings lack moral authority and justification." Arguments about the non-aggression principal and property rights can be considered a flawed moral power play.

It's a statement that those who gain from the existence of moral exceptions have an interest to oppose UPB as the acceptance of the validity of UPB would necessitate the forfiture of said gain.

[Lykourgos]

It's a statement that those who gain from the existence of moral exceptions have an interest to oppose UPB as the acceptance of the validity of UPB would necessitate the forfiture of said gain.

 

Right, and it applies to fanboys of the UPB, too, who gain from the acceptance of the validity of UPB.

 

Even referring to other beliefs as consisting of "moral exceptions" is a mistake. You're clearly coming from the position of a person who champions the UPB. Other people have quite reasonably concluded that the chapter about "middle truths" is as deeply flawed as the rest of the text.

[Guest Gee]

Right, and it applies to fanboys of the UPB, too, who gain from the acceptance of the validity of UPB.

UPB permits of moral exceptions? Because how can a fanboy gain from moral exceptions when they don't exist in UPB.

[Lykourgos]

UPB permits of moral exceptions?

 

The term "moral exceptions" is flawed in and of itself. My point, however, is that the UPB affords people certain moral authority and privileges that they might not otherwise enjoy. Fanboys of the UPB would be loath to surrender that source of power and justification.

 

Both sides have something to lose if they admit they're wrong.

[Guest Gee]

Even referring to other beliefs as consisting of "moral exceptions" is a mistake. You're clearly coming from the position of a person who champions the UPB. Other people have quite reasonably concluded that the chapter about "middle truths" is as deeply flawed as the rest of the text.

Right, just as I have reasonably concluded that they are wrong. Would that they had an argument to rebut.

[Lykourgos]

Right, just as I have reasonably concluded that they are wrong. Would that they had an argument to rebut.

 

It's the reasonable conclusions part that's important here, I agree, and I'm sure that at some point you will make a thread, or enter my thread, and present a coherent account of morality.

 

Until then, though, I'm happy to wag my finger at any post that just says, "well x will never give it up because then they'll lose something." That line applies to both sides of the argument; it needs to be accompanied by something more substantive.

[Torero]

Yep, I agree with Will and others, there's almost nothing but contempt for the UPB outside this forum. I myself hold it with contempt, too, but I decided to register and see what people here had to say about moral issues.

 

contempt

• a feeling that someone or something is not worthy of any respect or approval
• a lack of respect for or fear of something that is usually respected or feared

As far as I understand UPB is a "moral theory" or "a system of secular ethics".

 

Do you "hold contempt" for evolution or gravity too?

 

In science you'd have to come up with a more reliable/better fit theory in order to refute the former.

Did you write a "system of moral issues" book yourself? As you "decided to register" because of that reason?

[Lykourgos]

 

contempt

• a feeling that someone or something is not worthy of any respect or approval

•  

• a lack of respect for or fear of something that is usually respected or feared

•  

As far as I understand UPB is a "moral theory" or "a system of secular ethics".

 

Do you "hold contempt" for evolution or gravity too?

 

No, why do you think I hold contempt for evolution or gravity?

 

I hold contempt for the UPB. The account of morality is not worthy of respect or approval.

[Guest Gee]

It's the reasonable conclusions part that's important here, I agree, and I'm sure that at some point you will make a thread, or enter my thread, and present a coherent account of morality.

 

Until then, though, I'm happy to wag my finger at any post that just says, "well x will never give it up because then they'll lose something." That line applies to both sides of the argument; it needs to be accompanied by something more substantive.

Then we have just established the validity of UPB

[Lykourgos]

Then we have just established the validity of UPB

 

Only, we haven't.

 

Feel free to give your account of morality, though. There's an entire thread just waiting for you. Or take over this one, I guess.

[Torero]

No, why do you think I hold contempt for evolution or gravity?

 

I asked a question. I have never stated "I think you..."

 

 

 

I hold contempt for the UPB. The account of morality is not worthy of respect or approval.

 

Why do you "hold contempt" for UPB?

 

What is the reason for disrespecting someone else's theory? See the comparison with "gravity" or "evolution".

 

And my question; did you write a book on secular ethics yourself?

[Guest Gee]

"well x will never give it up because then they'll lose something." That line applies to both sides of the argument.

This line here.

 

It is a statement of the existence of a universally preferable behaviour.

[Lykourgos]

This line here.

 

It is a statement of the existence of a universally preferable behaviour.

 

No it's not.

 

Oh man, see how easy that is? Both can play at that game.

 

I don't even know what you think a "universally preferable behaviour" is. In fact, why are you even looking at me to give an account of morality. I would like to read an account of morality, but people here are incapable or unwilling to show it; instead, they just claim that if you talk to them, you admit that their account is correct.

[RCali]

People on this very forum don't expend much effort trying to defend the UPB

 

You link a 3 page thread and follow by saying people don't defend UPB. 

Now, what's more likely... UPB actually being wrong, having been written by one of the smartest men on earth, and having been proof read by thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or you being the one wrong? I don't know. How many books have you written on ethics? How many podcasts? What's your take on ethics? 

[Torero]

In fact, why are you even looking at me to give an account of morality.

 

 

 

In science you'd have to come up with a more reliable/better fit theory in order to refute the former.

Did you write a "system of moral issues" book yourself? As you "decided to register" because of that reason?

 

Cf.:

 

"I hold contempt for the theories of evolution and gravity"

"Did you write a thesis on those topics yourself?

"No, I just disrespect what other people write"

 

[Lykourgos]

I asked a question. I have never stated "I think you..."

 

 

 

 

Why do you "hold contempt" for UPB?

 

What is the reason for disrespecting someone else's theory? See the comparison with "gravity" or "evolution".

 

And my question; did you write a book on secular ethics yourself?

 

You asked a question, but you clearly had some reason for introducing the concept of gravity and evolution. So did you think they were comparable, and therefore that it would logically follow that I hold contempt for them? Because that is incorrect; I hold contempt for the UPB because it is an incoherent account of morality, and ultimately boils down to a subjective moral power-play.

 

Why did you italicise "disrespecting" and put it in bold? Do you think it's an awful thing to review the UPB text, discuss it with people here, and then reach a conclusion? My conclusion is that it's a flawed and incoherent text, and that it's supporters are unable or unwilling to explain and defend it.

 

No, I did not write a book on secular ethics. Is that also proof that the UPB is a true account of morality?

You link a 3 page thread and follow by saying people don't defend UPB. 

Now, what's more likely... UPB actually being wrong, having been written by one of the smartest men on earth, and having been proof read by thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or you being the one wrong? I don't know. How many books have you written on ethics? How many podcasts? What's your take on ethics? 

 

Yes, a 3 page thread of hand wringing and people refusing to define terms and address logical inconsistencies.

 

As for your questions of what's more likely, that's a very funny account of reality. If you want to talk about the text, you could just as easily write "having been written by a relatively obscure thinker, and roundly rejected by every recognised philosopher and academic institution". 

 

I don't fault the guy who wrote the UPB for trying to write a book. In my brief review of his book, I said it was good that he's interested in morality and hosts a call-in show. That doesn't erase the fact that the text is deeply flawed, and that people here either cannot, or will not, present and defend an account of it.

[Will Torbald]

"I don't know what UPB is or means, but it's wrong and I hate it!"

[Lykourgos]

"I don't know what UPB is or means, but it's wrong and I hate it!"

 

"I support the UPB, but I won't give an account of morality, I won't defend or define anything, and I expect the critics and disbelievers to tell me why I'm right!"

 

I came here thinking that some people honestly believed that the UPB was a true account of morality, and that they would try to explain and defend the text. In that sense, I was mistaken. I have already concluded that the text is rubbish, but this was an opportunity for its alleged adherents to step up to the plate.

 

I can't go elsewhere for such a discussion, because the text is roundly rejected.

[Torero]

I hold contempt for the UPB because it is an incoherent account of morality, and ultimately boils down to a subjective moral power-play.

 

If you do not agree with (or even hold contempt of) an ethical theory, you:

A) need to point out the incoherences and subjective parts, not handwaving

B) need to come up with a better theory, where "better" means; less incoherences and more objective parts

 

Do you think it's an awful thing to review the UPB text, discuss it with people here, and then reach a conclusion?

 

It was not me who started to bring in "(lack of) respect" in the discussion; the word contempt means that. You chose to use the word "contempt", not me.

 

My conclusion is that it's a flawed and incoherent text, and that it's supporters are unable or unwilling to explain and defend it.

 

Your use of wording like "supporters" or "fanboys" already shows your position.

And again; if something is "flawed" and "incoherent" in your opinion, you'd have to point out those flaws and incoherencies.

 

See for instance how I've treated the flawed and incoherent political hypothesis of Antropogenic Global Warming on this forum.

 

No, I did not write a book on secular ethics. Is that also proof that the UPB is a true account of morality?

 

No, it's proof you're just trolling. You don't have a better theory, you don't have any material to present yourself, you just say "I disrespect your book [but do no effort to present something else]".

 

Or, much more to-the-point is how Will Torbald described it:

 

"I don't know what UPB is or means, but it's wrong and I hate it!"

[Guest Gee]

No it's not.

 

Oh man, see how easy that is? Both can play at that game.

 

I don't even know what you think a "universally preferable behaviour" is. In fact, why are you even looking at me to give an account of morality. I would like to read an account of morality, but people here are incapable or unwilling to show it; instead, they just claim that if you talk to them, you admit that their account is correct.

I could explain it to you but I can't comprehend it for you.

 

But I can't explain it better than the hundreds of hours of UPB podcasts.

[Will Torbald]

"I support the UPB, but I won't give an account of morality, I won't defend or define anything, and I expect the critics and disbelievers to tell me why I'm right!"

 

I came here thinking that some people honestly believed that the UPB was a true account of morality, and that they would try to explain and defend the text. In that sense, I was mistaken. I have already concluded that the text is rubbish, but this was an opportunity for its alleged adherents to step up to the plate.

 

I can't go elsewhere for such a discussion, because the text is roundly rejected.

 

But you do understand the cowardice of saying that you reject something you don't understand, right?

[Lykourgos]

 

If you do not agree with (or even hold contempt of) an ethical theory, you:

A) need to point out the incoherences and subjective parts, not handwaving

B) need to come up with a better theory, where "better" means; less incoherences and more objective parts

 

I don't need to do (A) or (B). In actual fact, though, I did spend some time doing (A).

 

 

 

It was not me who started to bring in "(lack of) respect" in the discussion; the word contempt means that. You chose to use the word "contempt", not me.

 

I'm not disrespecting the theory; instead, I gave it my attention, and then learnt that it was unworthy of respect or approval.

 

 

...

No, it's proof you're just trolling. You don't have a better theory, you don't have any material to present yourself, you just say "I disrespect your book [but do no effort to present something else]".

 

I do have a better theory, and I did give an account of some of its errors.

 

That's besides the point, though, because I came here for one simple reason. To see if its adherents could offer and defend their account of morality. They couldn't, the end. That conclusion is wholly independent of my beliefs, and my account of the errors in the text.

 

I could explain it to you but I can't comprehend it for you.

 

But I can't explain it better than the hundreds of hours of UPB podcasts.

 

You could explain it, but you're unwilling. All this tells me is that not only is the text rejected everywhere outside of this forum, but even in this forum people are unwilling to provide an explanation and defense of it.