You can't oppose UPB without preferring it

[Nick900]

Within one of Stef's podcasts he puts forward the claim that you can't oppose UPB without expressing your preference to oppose it, how does this follow? 

 

To put forward a theory and then have someone reject it as false does not involve any preference, it is simply stating that the theory is wrong, right? To oppose a theory doesn't express any preference that the other person should believe it, you're just validating it?

 

(I understand UPB is valid, this is just a minor point I've heard many times, I'm not sure if I'm just misunderstanding, but to say you can't oppose it without using it sounds strange.)

 

(Sorry not sure what happened to the thread earlier, I think the spam filter ate it o.o)

[Kevin Beal]

You must have edited your post because it's not showing up in the thread, but if we go by the title of the thread, you've mischaracterized the argument.

 

"You cannot argue against objective preferences without it necessarily implying an objective preference for truth over falsehood, thus it is self-defeating" – is a good starting point. It needs further refinement to actually describe what is talked about in UPB, though.

 

In UPB, an objective preference actually doesn't describe what we normally think of when we use the word "preference". It should be thought of as being synonymous with "objectively required".

 

When I say that you should not murder, it is clearly different than saying that you should pull my finger (so I can let rip a big fart). The "should" here has a different meaning. That is the objective preference versus the subjective preference. It is objectively required that you not murder in some sense.

 

If I'm mowing your lawn for you and I'm checking my text messages to chat with my girlfriend, and you say that I should do the work you already paid me for, then I need to do it as a matter of principle. I don't need to do that in order to achieve something else. I need to do it because it is the right thing to do.

 

UPB is about objectively evaluating these things where it is the right thing to do, and not just what you should do in order to achieve something else.

 

So, when you argue against UPB, implied is that I should make true statements and reject false ones. I should do that because it is the right thing to do. Maybe UPB, the framework, is wrong in some way, but the primacy and logic of having universal preferences, in the way I described, is something that must be accepted, or else it is a self-detonating argument.

[Nick900]

.

[fer]

There is an implicit acceptance of "truth is preferable over falsehood" when rejecting a statement.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

"You can't oppose universally preferable behavior without preferring it"

 

I think your use of the word "preferring" may not be justified here. To prefer something is different than to say something is preferable. The latter is a universal category, while the former is a particular instance. If someone rejects a theory because it is false, they are automatically saying it would be preferable for the theory to be true, and that if the theory were not false they would not reject it. If they have some other reason for rejecting the theory other than its falsehood, like rather how it makes them feel inside their tummy, then this would not be a rejection of the theory, but a rejection of the feeling in their tummy. Maybe that's not the clearest way for me to put it, but does it make some sense?

 

Just to try and clarify some more, I don't think he has stated what you have put in your title. I think the statement would make more sense to say: you can not reject universally preferable behavior without simultaneously relying on universally preferable behavior to base your rejection. Any rejection of UPB which did not accept UPB would not actually be a rejection of UPB; rather it would be a rejection of a personal, subjective feeling that was associated with UPB. UPB could only be rejected if it were false, but since that leads to a contradiction, then it would be an invalid form of argument.

 

I hope that made some sense

[Nick900]

Oh! I get it now, thanks for the clear up