crafn Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Hello all Going through Stefan's book and videos about UPB didn't make me too confident, but the idea of a "scientific method for ethics" is so compelling that I decided to examine it more. So I did what any theoretical physics student would do to understand something better, establish a mathematical structure enclosing it. After a few failed attempts I got something working, which seems to reproduce the conclusions of UPB, here: http://crafn.kapsi.fi/data/upb_latest.pdf I'm posting this so that someone can shoot my reasoning down, or maybe even find some insight or evidence for UPB, as I did. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 That's very interesting. I don't quite know enough about this kind of formal mathematical symbolic logic to support or refute your proof. And I don't mean to dismiss your efforts, but you have to understand that for the majority of people, it is easier to understand these things in common language, applied to real social situations, rather than abstract mathematical reasoning. Very few people would understand things the way you have framed them. But when you point out that parents hit their kids and yell at their kids, but also teach them not to hit and yell at people, or that States claim to uphold and defend property rights and laws, while violating property and breaking their own laws, people get it. Many of them lash out with petty nastiness rather than admit there seems to be a contradiction in generally accepted morals and practices, but still at a deep level, they get it, I believe. Philosophy has been swept up in meaningless abstractions for too long in my opinion, and UPB cuts right to the heart of some essential problems in most people's thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 I love the idea. Browsing the pdf...you used the term "somewhat objective" in the paper. Isn't that a contradiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Reminds me of Isamov's Three Laws of Robotics. If you can translate UPB into mathematics and computer code, then maybe we'll avert a Terminator situation. Another connection can be made with the emotional expressiveness of music (numbers through time). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosencrantz Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This is a great idea, but there is no need to invent the wheel twice since there is already Deontic Logic: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-deontic/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crafn Posted March 15, 2016 Author Share Posted March 15, 2016 -- you have to understand that for the majority of people, it is easier to understand these things in common language, applied to real social situations, rather than abstract mathematical reasoning. -- Yeah, I get that. My problem with common language is that when I e.g. sit in a lecture I often find myself thinking that I've understood something. Afterwards, when I take the math out I find that I actually have understood only some superficial thing, and spend now hours and hours thinking how to fit the math pieces together and adjust my common language concepts to the unforgivable logic. Had the same experience with this. Browsing the pdf...you used the term "somewhat objective" in the paper. Isn't that a contradiction? The point is that the math is connected to these concepts like action and preference which have not been defined in any way rigorous, which of course leads to problems when trying to deal with grey area situations. Sloppy language, but shouldn't affect the overall logical structure there. This is a great idea, but there is no need to invent the wheel twice since there is already Deontic Logic: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-deontic/ That could be useful if I ever feel the need to make the thing more rigorous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csekavec Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 By Seldon this is valuable work. Well done sir! Not yet unique but keep at it and you'll be breaking new ground very soon. Also, I'm very sorry to say that a i /= p i. You halved the problem by making that limitation which is fine but you left out most kinds of coerced action. But then so does UPB. I think this might be what you were covering a few sentences later when discussing (3)? This issue also re-emerges later on. The establishment of universality is fine. I complain that it doesn't make prediction yet. For example a(P sub i) contains those that pertain only to self and also those that pertain to others. But only one part is covered. Also the same weakness of UPB is shared by effort, namely, that the end must be presupposed. So here then are some questions. Can you accurately predict set of moral actions of one individual where those actions are neutral in regards to another but good in regards to self? And the contriwise set? I know already you can get at least a partial set as your logic stands but how to go farther I am not yet sure I have suggestions. Can you account for [ (a 1 (p 2), a 2 (p 2) ]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crafn Posted March 15, 2016 Author Share Posted March 15, 2016 --- So here then are some questions. Can you accurately predict set of moral actions of one individual where those actions are neutral in regards to another but good in regards to self? And the contriwise set? I know already you can get at least a partial set as your logic stands but how to go farther I am not yet sure I have suggestions. Can you account for [ (a 1 (p 2), a 2 (p 2) ]? Thanks! Hmm, I don't know what you mean by "good in regards to self", because every voluntary act is in the neutral category (which includes aesthetically loaded behavior in the paper). Would also need to think a bit how the target of an action should be denoted, now it's baked into the preference. But I don't see any immediate problems with preference pairs like (P1, P1)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csekavec Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Well there you are. That a man alone on a desert island can't be good is a flaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crafn Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 What does UPB say about the desert island then? I was under the impression that a man on a desert island can't be either good nor evil, because he doesn't have a choice whether to e.g. murder or not. And everything where he has a choice is a voluntary act by definition, because it only involves himself. I'll be happy to be corrected, if that's incorrect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csekavec Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 I wouldn't yet presume to represent UPB. I will say this. That the best man can't be moral without even the most vile man who must act as the foil against the dignity of the best man is atrocious. And fortunately, wrong. The major flaw of UPB is that unnecessary presumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crafn Posted March 18, 2016 Author Share Posted March 18, 2016 So you're arguing that the neutral moral status of the island man is a problem with UPB? I'd be fine with that, at least in this thread, as it's a question separate to my formulation which tries to work in the realm of UPB. Of course, if you figure out how to formulate your idea of a more correct moral classification, I'd be interested to see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts