What is the "Standard of Value" for UPB?

[John Sambrook]

In Objectivism, Rand defined morality (and ethics, as its synonym) as [1]:

"What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.

The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?
 

Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?"

Further on in [1], she defines the standard of value for the Objectivist ethics as:

"The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man."

I am reading about UPB right now, and wondering, what is its standard of value?

Is it logical consistency - what an Objectivist might call non-contradictory identification?
 

The Objectivist Ethics, especially if one considers follow-on books like "Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Peikoff, covers a lot of ground. The UPB book, itself, seems small by comparison. And yet we have Stef's 10 years or so of podcasting, where he (seems to) cover his ethics in detail.

So I'm wondering, what is the "Standard of Value" for UPB, and where is the "FDR Ethics" spelled out. I'm assuming it's Stef's podcasts, but perhaps that's wrong.

Thoughts?

 

1. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html

 

[EclecticIdealist]

start here... https://freedomainradio.com/free/

particularly his books on Truth and on UPB

 

but the short answer is, universal applicability, rational consistency, non-aggression, avoidability, and proportionate response... read or listen to the books and come back to this thread ready to discuss.

[Mister Mister]

Hi John, nice to see you around here again.  I think EI answered the question pretty well, but what I wanted to ask of you, is what does this even mean in Objectivism?  I always had trouble with this part of Rand's thought in particular.  How do we measure the life of man?  Doesn't it differ based on the person?  And doesn't this potentially justify harming others for your own survival, or some kind of utilitarian welfare state?  I just never really understood what she meant by this, or how it leads to the NAP or a minimal state.

[Will Torbald]

As far as I understand, UPB doesn't have a central value with which you judge good and evil. You don't say "If it's bad for X then it is evil" in it. Evil is defined as that which is universally impreferable, and the good as universally preferable through all the tests and proofs it has.

[Tyler H]

I've been re-listening to the audiobook lately, a few times over actually and each time I catch something new.  It's short but it's a heavy mother. I believe it reflects Abbot Terrasson's remark in regards to books that "it would be much shorter if it were not so short".

 

I think you are right though; that the standard of value as described by UPB would be rational/logical consistency.  If ethics are subjective than anyone can have any opinion about it and make up any rules they want.  If you want ethics to be objective then they need to be universally applied or they are just subjective.  What is immoral is what is impossible to be universalized (what I assume Will meant by "universally impreferable").  If you're going to say something is good and moral and people should act this way, then saying an action such as theft/murder/rape is good or preferable is illogical because one person would have to act immorally to create the possibility for the other to be moral. Also, if they cannot both perform the same "moral" action at the same time, then the theory self destructs.  I believe this is what separates the immoral actions from the merely aesthetically negative actions along with the degree of avoidability.

 

I'm still trying to grasp the concept in a way that I'm confident with so please anyone correct me if I'm wrong about anything or misunderstood something.

[John Sambrook]

start here... https://freedomainradio.com/free/

particularly his books on Truth and on UPB

 

but the short answer is, universal applicability, rational consistency, non-aggression, avoidability, and proportionate response... read or listen to the books and come back to this thread ready to discuss.

 

I appreciate the advice, EI. I've read "On Truth" in the past, but will read it again. And I'm reading the UPB book now. I should probably be taking notes, but I haven't done that so far.

Hi John, nice to see you around here again.  I think EI answered the question pretty well, but what I wanted to ask of you, is what does this even mean in Objectivism?  I always had trouble with this part of Rand's thought in particular.  How do we measure the life of man?  Doesn't it differ based on the person?  And doesn't this potentially justify harming others for your own survival, or some kind of utilitarian welfare state?  I just never really understood what she meant by this, or how it leads to the NAP or a minimal state.

Hi RC - Good to catch up with you again, as well.

 

The issues you raise are good ones, in my view. I will try to give some answers, but don't know that I can do as complete a job as I would like in this reply. Maybe it will be something we discuss in more back and forth.

 

Rand's standard of value is often quoted as "Man's life qua man." From what I have read, she means literal survival as a human being, and not some kind of life that she happens to think is appropriate to human beings. She set out to prove, objectively, what human survival requires, and in her analysis, man's essential means of survival is reason, or rationality.

 

So, to my knowledge, her standard does not vary on a per-person basis, nor is it subjective in nature. I realize this is probably difficult to accept, and I'm not saying that my claims prove it in any way. I'm only reporting on my interpretation of her work based on what I have read about it.

 

Does this standard give license to harming others? To answer, I think we'd need clarity on what actually harms someone else.

 

For example, if you run a successful music store, and I open a music store next to yours and begin to compete with you for customers, have I harmed you? I would say no, because I have undermined your ability to use reason (your "essential means of survival") to improve your condition. I have created additional challenges for you, and maybe I have cut into your income, but I don't think Rand would say that I have harmed you.

 

On the other hand, if I used force to compete with you, say, by locking you in my basement, then I have undermined your ability to use reason to achieve your values in life. You can reach any conclusions you wish, while you are chained up, but you are powerless to act on them unless you can escape from the prison I've created for you.

 

Well, perhaps that is at least a start on your useful questions. I'll catch up with you again soon.

 

 

As far as I understand, UPB doesn't have a central value with which you judge good and evil. You don't say "If it's bad for X then it is evil" in it. Evil is defined as that which is universally impreferable, and the good as universally preferable through all the tests and proofs it has.

Hi WT - I appreciate this. Sadly, I think I'm too much of a UPB novice to be able to say anything of substance on it right now. It's an interesting book, and one that is going to take me some time to really comprehend, I think.

I've been re-listening to the audiobook lately, a few times over actually and each time I catch something new.  It's short but it's a heavy mother. I believe it reflects Abbot Terrasson's remark in regards to books that "it would be much shorter if it were not so short".

 

I think you are right though; that the standard of value as described by UPB would be rational/logical consistency.  If ethics are subjective than anyone can have any opinion about it and make up any rules they want.  If you want ethics to be objective then they need to be universally applied or they are just subjective.  What is immoral is what is impossible to be universalized (what I assume Will meant by "universally impreferable").  If you're going to say something is good and moral and people should act this way, then saying an action such as theft/murder/rape is good or preferable is illogical because one person would have to act immorally to create the possibility for the other to be moral. Also, if they cannot both perform the same "moral" action at the same time, then the theory self destructs.  I believe this is what separates the immoral actions from the merely aesthetically negative actions along with the degree of avoidability.

 

I'm still trying to grasp the concept in a way that I'm confident with so please anyone correct me if I'm wrong about anything or misunderstood something.

Hi TH - Your comment makes sense to me, although there is a part of it that I have to think more about. It's in this sentence: "If you want ethics to be objective then they need to be universally applied or they are just subjective."

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's something I have to think about more carefully. Speaking for myself, what it means to be objective is a big topic, and it's something that Dr. Peikoff (Rand's heir and student of 30 years) gave a whole host of detailed lectures on.

 

Sorry, but I can't say anything more substantial right now. All of this has given me a lot to think about.....

[dsayers]

For example, if you run a successful music store, and I open a music store next to yours and begin to compete with you for customers, have I harmed you? I would say no, because I have undermined your ability to use reason (your "essential means of survival") to improve your condition. I have created additional challenges for you, and maybe I have cut into your income, but I don't think Rand would say that I have harmed you.

You are correct that opening a similar store next door is not the initiation of the use of force. However, this is not because of anybody's capability of reason, but because your behavior isn't binding upon the other store owner. Person X can say Y, but unless it's accurate, that doesn't mean anything.

 

The problem with seeking out values is that they're inherently subjective. This is where I think the usefulness of objective morality shines. On top of that, it's dead simple. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. Because they're the only behaviors that are binding upon others without their consent. They're internally consistent, which means the very person perpetrating the behavior is TELLING YOU that they're in the wrong for doing so.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Another angle to take on this, the shortest angle in my opinion, is that Rand's arguments have nothing to do with whether UPB is true or not.

 

To say UPB is not true, is to say it is universally preferable not to be universally preferable in the domain of ethics. I know that statement alone is likely a long shot to prove anything, and maybe rightly so, but it's analogous to saying science doesn't exist because the properties of matter are completely random in observation. To say universally preferable behavior does not exist is to say there can be no hope for a universal ethics, in a fundamental sense. This is just an anecdote, but I personally am not betting on anything surpassing UPB, but instead marginal improvements on the basic core of UPB over time.

 

Universally preferable ​behavior​ as a theory says that behaviors are events. So distinct from the hard sciences, the events in ethics are fundamentally subjective occurrences; they are based on preference, and preference requires will. Will is a synonym for self ownership, proven by axiom whenever coercion is not present; and behaviors are universalized to become theories about behavior. This theory states there is such a thing as universally preferable behavior, and it includes all behaviors, except for behaviors which cannot be universally preferable. There is a lot more to it,  such as explaining testability and actually defining the epistemology of ethics. But until another theory of ethics is pit forth, UPB stands as the only consistent moral theory. And if there are flaws in UPB, that is different from saying the entire concept should be discarded for no reasonable alternative.

 

Rand has poorly defined anything at all. It is a series of tautologies. It is oh-so-mystical or romantic of Rand to literally premise her ethics on a tautology. "Man acting as man" is a blatant tautology. I don't mean to be specifically hard on her, she actually was a genius for her age, but she was not able to fundamentally treat ethics with the necessary rigor to stand shoulders with science, as no great mind was before UPB.

 

 

I guess I should mention I haven't read UPB, but I did listen to podcasts on it multiple times (UPB intro, UPB redux, several criticisms, all more than once) but then again I haven't read Popper and yet I know and can sufficiently explain the scientific method. It's because these things aren't that hard in their essence, if you understand metaphysics and epistemology (which is great in Rand). 

 

I think it is emotionally difficult! But... all UPB really says is theories about ethics should be consistent, and here is what that actually means concerning the epistemological practice of UPB and here is how consistency is measured in reality; i.e. let's see if a behavior is either immoral or moral through the lens of UPB. Obviously, UPB answers quite intuitively on questions of theft and murder, and even has something to say about aesthetically preferable behavior.

 

The only way to escape UPB really is to become a complete subjectivist nihilist and reject the entire basis of metaphysics, which is to say to become a complete lunatic and deny all valid scientific principles.

 

Lastly, a consideration is that ethics is a social science in the sense that the events in the models/theories are subjective human preferences. So economics can fit this category; as can biology in being about the observable properties of an abstract principle at work - Evolution. The only additional example I can think of is psychology. These are all what I would consider Social Sciences because they are metaphysically distinct from hard sciences, and this has to be accounted for in the category which differentiates such a thing; epistemology!

 

I hope that wasn't terribly boring!

 

Please, corrections where I may have obviously got it wrong.

[EclecticIdealist]

The biggest problem with “Universally Preferable Behavior” is the claim that it is an objective moral standard of behavior when in fact it is a subjective moral standard of behavior.

According to Ayn Rand’s Objectivist Philosophy, the moral standard for man’s behavior, that which may be deemed “good” is That which is required for the survival of man qua man.” Put more clearly. Survival is a universal drive of all living things. Man’s natural instincts alone are insufficient for his survival. Man must act according to reason in order to survive. Man is capable of acting in a manner that is either self-destructive or in a manner that supports his survival. Those actions which are self-destructive are wrong, immoral or evil and those actions which support man’s survival are right, moral, or good.

Some might mistake this as an objective standard because under certain ideal conditions it can be universally applicable, in other words, it is can be obligatory for every person independent of geography, time, age, sex, religion, belief, or any other circumstance, it is rational because it can be simultaneously obligatory for all people without creating inherent logical contradictions, and it is empirically or observably testable. Where it fails is that it presumes that man’s survival is an objectively true, correct, or good ideal applicable to all persons under all situations simultaneously, when the fact is, there are circumstances where this would not be the case; such as “lifeboat scenarios”, instances where continuing living under hellish physical torment is less preferable to its cessation through death, and so on. Furthermore, what may be required for one person’s survival may come at the expense of another person’s survival such as the ability to persuade someone (or not succumb to the persuasion of someone) to sacrifice their life for them. In short, what purports to be an Objective moral standard ultimately becomes subjective when actually put into practice.

UPB attempts to resolve the problem of subjectivism by testing moral propositions for internal consistency (i.e. rationality), as well as external consistency (is it empirically observed or does it conform to our intuitive moral sense?) It will begin testing a proposition for internal consistency by testing whether or not the moral judgement of the behavior can be universally applicable, i.e. can all people simultaneously engage in the behavior (or refrain from the behavior) and be considered “good” for doing so? It does this by pitting two people in a room together with each engaging in the behavior in question and asking if such behavior can be considered desirable and whether each person can therefore be considered good. Of course behavior which is by definition abhorrent by the victim of it cannot be universally good, but refraining from such behavior by all parties can be considered, at least morally neutral if not morally good. By this standard, actions which benefit one at the victimization of another are regarded internally as well as externally consistent. The wrongness of such actions is determined by how avoidable they are on the part of the victim; for example assault, rape, murder, robbery and theft are actions which a person knowing they are likely or about to occur can scarcely easily avoid. But aesthetically negative behavior such as habitual lateness, passing wind, etc. can easily be avoided and while almost universally abhorrent are not usually considered immoral in the same way as the aforementioned violent and property crimes.

Stefan does a good job presenting his argument for UPB, but as mentioned previously, it’s fault lies in the fact that, despite its claims, it too is inherently subjective, relying upon the premise that for any moral system to be valid, it must consider all moral actors to be equal (i.e., prefer egalitarianism over, for example, a class system), and therefore, for all moral behaviors to be judged equally. It also requires a preference for rational consistency over another system which may not be rational, but merely authoritarian as many religious moral systems tend to be (especially those originating in the Middle East). Without these two key preferences (egalitarianism, and rationality), as well as the preference for proportionality (one doesn’t treat simple assault like capital murder, or insulting a person like rape), non-aggression, and a recognition and respect for property rights, and UPB falls apart. In short UPB as a moral system (not the rational or scientific evaluation of moral propositions) is no less subjective than any other moral system that at first glance seems to be objective.

What UPB should teach us, however, is that we should stop looking for an objective standard for morality, and instead look to the ideals which are most important to us and how best we might ensure that they are or become the guiding principles upon which our own lives, the lives of our families, and the lives of our communities, nation, and world are directed.
 

But until another theory of ethics is pit forth, UPB stands as the only consistent moral theory. And if there are flaws in UPB, that is different from saying the entire concept should be discarded for no reasonable alternative.

UPB is not the only consistent moral theory, it is simply one of of the more consistent moral theories put forth. Objectivism, despite its flaws is equally consistent by the standards set forth by UPB 
 

The only way to escape UPB really is to become a complete subjectivist nihilist and reject the entire basis of metaphysics, which is to say to become a complete lunatic and deny all valid scientific principles.

If by “escape UPB”, you mean to not abide by behavior that is desirable by almost all, I would tend to agree with you. If by “escape UPB”, you mean reject all the claims made about it, I would have to vehemently disagree with you as illustrated by my comments above.
 

The problem with seeking out values is that they're inherently subjective. This is where I think the usefulness of objective morality shines. On top of that, it's dead simple. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. Because they're the only behaviors that are binding upon others without their consent. They're internally consistent, which means the very person perpetrating the behavior is TELLING YOU that they're in the wrong for doing so.

You mean valuing things like private property, safety, consent or choice, and life is inherently subjective? How then can violating any of these be violating an objective moral standard if they're nothing more than subjective preferences (despite being almost universally desired)?  
 

If ethics are subjective than anyone can have any opinion about it and make up any rules they want.  If you want ethics to be objective then they need to be universally applied or they are just subjective.

That morals must be universally applicable to all is based on the egalitarian ideal—all men are created equal and therefore equally subject to moral laws. This is not the only possibility, even for a rational moral system. Is it immoral if some moral prescriptions or prohibitions only apply to some people and not to others? If so, why?

[John Sambrook]

You are correct that opening a similar store next door is not the initiation of the use of force. However, this is not because of anybody's capability of reason, but because your behavior isn't binding upon the other store owner. Person X can say Y, but unless it's accurate, that doesn't mean anything.

 

The problem with seeking out values is that they're inherently subjective. This is where I think the usefulness of objective morality shines. On top of that, it's dead simple. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. Because they're the only behaviors that are binding upon others without their consent. They're internally consistent, which means the very person perpetrating the behavior is TELLING YOU that they're in the wrong for doing so.

Hi DS -

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Yes, opening a store next to someone else is not initiating force. I think I was trying to focus more on why Objectivists consider the use of force immoral. Within that context, the immorality is the result of force effectively overriding a person's use of reason, which is their essential means of survival. Since the standard of value in the O'ist Ethics is man's life, actions which undermine or destroy a person's ability to live are considered to be immoral.

 

If I missed your point, which is entirely possible, please clarify.

 

As regards your second point, and UPB in general, one justification / defense of it is "You have to use UPB to argue against it, so it cannot be false." I am not saying that this is an error or failing in UPB. Rather, I'm trying to check my understanding of it by trying to relate it to other philosophical systems.

 

Rand would say, I think, that this is pointing to what she identified as the "Fallacy of the Stolen Concept" [1]:

 

The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.

 

Stef has spoken about "self-exploding" statements in many of his podcasts. They often seem to come down to this fallacy, to the best of my knowledge.

 

1. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/stolen_concept,_fallacy_of.html

[Will Torbald]

Hi DS -

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Yes, opening a store next to someone else is not initiating force. I think I was trying to focus more on why Objectivists consider the use of force immoral. Within that context, the immorality is the result of force effectively overriding a person's use of reason, which is their essential means of survival. Since the standard of value in the O'ist Ethics is man's life, actions which undermine or destroy a person's ability to live are considered to be immoral.

 

If I missed your point, which is entirely possible, please clarify.

 

As regards your second point, and UPB in general, one justification / defense of it is "You have to use UPB to argue against it, so it cannot be false." I am not saying that this is an error or failing in UPB. Rather, I'm trying to check my understanding of it by trying to relate it to other philosophical systems.

 

 

 

I know I'm butting into this argument, but I just want to point out that dsayer's arguments are not the arguments of UPB. If you want to understand what UPB is I wouldn't have you confused with his own ideas on morality.

 

When it is said that UPB is needed to argue against it, it means that you are asking another person that they "should conform to reason and evidence" or that they should adapt their behavior to a universal standard of truth. Which is what UPB says in the first place, that the good behavior is one that conforms to universal principles.

[rosencrantz]

The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define.

 

The problem with the concept of the fallacy of the stolen concept is that there is dichotomy between logical statements and (abstract) statements about the reality. 

 

All planets consist of yoghurt.

Mars is a planet.

Mars is made of yoghurt.

 

Is a perfectly fine logical statement because the form of the argument is correct. You can derive that mode of reasoning from axioms that you chose to work. If the form of the statement can be derived from the axioms, it is valid.

 

It's material content however is wrong, because the premises are wrong. Planets are not made of yoghurt, apparently. Abstract statements about reality have to be falsifiable if they are to make any sense at all. This implies that there is no final judgment for those statements, simply because you cannot check all instances of that statement. 

 

In addition, observation that seem to affirm the abstract the statement don't make it stronger. One observation to the contrary can make the whole statement useless disregarding the numbers of observations prior to it that seemed to have validated it.

 

[dsayers]

I think I was trying to focus more on why Objectivists consider the use of force immoral.

Not the use of force, but the initiation of the use of force. Because initiating the use of force is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. The objective world tells us that something cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously.

 

Within that context, the immorality is the result of force effectively overriding a person's use of reason, which is their essential means of survival.

This sounds like you're taking the conclusion of reason and trying to make it fit. If a person steals from, assaults, or rapes me, I have not lose my capability to reason. I have on the other hand been deprived of my property by somebody who was using their property to bind me without my consent.

 

Since the standard of value in the O'ist Ethics is man's life

This is an assertion. Near as I can tell, in this thread, the case you've made for this is "Rand says." But this is insufficient as a standard for determining the truth.

[John Sambrook]

The biggest problem with “Universally Preferable Behavior” is the claim that it is an objective moral standard of behavior when in fact it is a subjective moral standard of behavior.

 

According to Ayn Rand’s Objectivist Philosophy, the moral standard for man’s behavior, that which may be deemed “good” is That which is required for the survival of man qua man.” Put more clearly. Survival is a universal drive of all living things. Man’s natural instincts alone are insufficient for his survival. Man must act according to reason in order to survive. Man is capable of acting in a manner that is either self-destructive or in a manner that supports his survival. Those actions which are self-destructive are wrong, immoral or evil and those actions which support man’s survival are right, moral, or good.

 

Some might mistake this as an objective standard because under certain ideal conditions it can be universally applicable, in other words, it is can be obligatory for every person independent of geography, time, age, sex, religion, belief, or any other circumstance, it is rational because it can be simultaneously obligatory for all people without creating inherent logical contradictions, and it is empirically or observably testable. Where it fails is that it presumes that man’s survival is an objectively true, correct, or good ideal applicable to all persons under all situations simultaneously, when the fact is, there are circumstances where this would not be the case; such as “lifeboat scenarios”, instances where continuing living under hellish physical torment is less preferable to its cessation through death, and so on. Furthermore, what may be required for one person’s survival may come at the expense of another person’s survival such as the ability to persuade someone (or not succumb to the persuasion of someone) to sacrifice their life for them. In short, what purports to be an Objective moral standard ultimately becomes subjective when actually put into practice.

 

UPB attempts to resolve the problem of subjectivism by testing moral propositions for internal consistency (i.e. rationality), as well as external consistency (is it empirically observed or does it conform to our intuitive moral sense?) It will begin testing a proposition for internal consistency by testing whether or not the moral judgement of the behavior can be universally applicable, i.e. can all people simultaneously engage in the behavior (or refrain from the behavior) and be considered “good” for doing so? It does this by pitting two people in a room together with each engaging in the behavior in question and asking if such behavior can be considered desirable and whether each person can therefore be considered good. Of course behavior which is by definition abhorrent by the victim of it cannot be universally good, but refraining from such behavior by all parties can be considered, at least morally neutral if not morally good. By this standard, actions which benefit one at the victimization of another are regarded internally as well as externally consistent. The wrongness of such actions is determined by how avoidable they are on the part of the victim; for example assault, rape, murder, robbery and theft are actions which a person knowing they are likely or about to occur can scarcely easily avoid. But aesthetically negative behavior such as habitual lateness, passing wind, etc. can easily be avoided and while almost universally abhorrent are not usually considered immoral in the same way as the aforementioned violent and property crimes.

 

Stefan does a good job presenting his argument for UPB, but as mentioned previously, it’s fault lies in the fact that, despite its claims, it too is inherently subjective, relying upon the premise that for any moral system to be valid, it must consider all moral actors to be equal (i.e., prefer egalitarianism over, for example, a class system), and therefore, for all moral behaviors to be judged equally. It also requires a preference for rational consistency over another system which may not be rational, but merely authoritarian as many religious moral systems tend to be (especially those originating in the Middle East). Without these two key preferences (egalitarianism, and rationality), as well as the preference for proportionality (one doesn’t treat simple assault like capital murder, or insulting a person like rape), non-aggression, and a recognition and respect for property rights, and UPB falls apart. In short UPB as a moral system (not the rational or scientific evaluation of moral propositions) is no less subjective than any other moral system that at first glance seems to be objective.

 

What UPB should teach us, however, is that we should stop looking for an objective standard for morality, and instead look to the ideals which are most important to us and how best we might ensure that they are or become the guiding principles upon which our own lives, the lives of our families, and the lives of our communities, nation, and world are directed.

Hello EI -

 

This is a most helpful response. Thank you.